I've seen an industrial grade disc resurfacing machine that takes stacks of discs for polishing in a hopper - they cost MUCH more than a thousand (USD) and if you could have your discs treated in such a machine for a buck a piece, it'd be well worth it.
I've also done the toothpaste thing and there is a technique to it (not just randomly swirling it around) because what you are doing is making fine scratches with the paste abrasive and the lines must radiate from the center of the disc outward to be effective. I have restored unreadable discs to a state where data could be pulled from them - it's just good enough for last-ditch recovery, IMO - not something to count on using repeatedly.
A couple guesses are in order. I think that NASA would feel compelled to alert the president before disclosure if the discovery is of something dangerous, valuable, or contentious (any others?).
Dangerous: the planet's surface regolith is laced with high concentrations of plutonium ready for the taking - retrieval could be a cost effective source for nuclear reactor fuel which could end the world's energy woes. But then there's weapons...
Valuable: the planet's surface appears red because of all the tiny rubies laying around, but some of them are bigger, and it's only a matter of time before the world economy is tanked as a result of overzealous ruby harvesting for the laser manufacturing industry.
Contentious: they have found organic compounds that distinctly resemble theoretical models of early life on Earth reinforcing that evolution through chemistry is the origin of life, not miraculous creation.
Anyone else care to take a shot with out references to Jimmy Hoffa or Saddam's WMDs?
My sentiments exactly. I've read/heard on numerous occasions NASA's space shuttle touted as the single most complicated machine ever built by man. Come now, really? Does it really hold a candle to this? Unbelievable engineering effort.
Forgot to mention that a related concept that has been experimented with involves locating vast underground cavern networks and using surplus power to pressurize them with air and then release that air back through wind turbine generators when needed. Again there's a problem with scale; there isn't a single solution to our power needs (unless you listen to the insistent voices claiming that nuclear power solves everything).
You're right: using surplus power to pump water to a high elevation reservoir and running it back down through the pump as a turbine to generate power when needed would work; we've been doing it for decades. Now all we need are 10,000 of those...
Yes and no; asking users how to improve the interface is not the right approach because as you point out: users know nothing. However, asking them where they have problems, get lost, slow down, etc while using your interface is an excellent means of narrowing down on what problems your development team can solve. It focuses your attention on things that actually matter instead of on things that you only imagine are necessary.
Also, pure graphic design photoshop/illustrator producers who think they can design a website and a menu to look pretty should be kept well away from GUI production. Don't let them hypnotize you into thinking that they know what the hell they're doing with regard to intuitive interfaces that users will understand based on common interface design patterns.
Assuming it's a web application, if (as already mentioned) you don't have a GUI designer available, at the very least, have a capable application engineer get the code set up with proper CSS selectors applied to the output, then save the pages and tell the graphic designer to knock himself out with CSS that can be applied to the page. Everything achievable in CSS is allowed, everything else is not. Then you'll at least have a working app that looks "OK" if it wasn't already a train wreck to start with.
The original movie pushed the limits of technology that was current at the time. I see this sequel as pushing the limits of technology that is current at this time - I kind of dig that. I wouldn't want to see the same polygonal "digiverse" as originally presented.
I must disagree with your comment about it being a "formula" film however because in one respect you're right: 99% of what comes out of Hollywood is a formula film - so why should this be any different? The original was a formula film as well ; if you study mythic structure in writing ("The Hero with a Thousand Faces", Joseph Campbell for example), it becomes pretty easy to spot the identical plots between the likes of Star Wars and Tron and just about every other movie you've ever enjoyed. The formula itself is not what makes or breaks the movie...
On June 30 of this year, The New Yorker magazine published a fascinating, if at moments disturbing article entitled The Itch. The article discusses, among other things, the human mind's perception of the reality of its environment based on the various nervous inputs it has, vision included. Apparently this is an oft debated topic among the scientific community, but it was new information to me.
One of the things I found intriguing was the note that the bulk (80%) of the neural interconnections going into the visual cortex of the human brain come not from the optic nerves themselves, but from other areas of the brain including "functions like memory." The suggestion is that the eyes provide visible light input, but that the brain's processing of what it is looking at is primarily an act of abstract object/pattern reconstruction.
If you couple this notion with the limitations of the human eye itself -- such as the fact that the finest resolution/detail comes from an incredibly narrow region directly in the center of the FOV with rapidly decreasing information towards the extremities that ranges from soft profiles to mere suggestions of color, brightness and movement -- it strikes me that if researchers at MIT wish to replicate the model of human vision on any level close to reality, their input and processing systems should actually be modeled a bit like the real deal.
I believe that without a solid neural net with strong pattern recognition, instant recall, massive parallel processing - the finer things of the visual cortex - that human vision will not be possible with semiconductors. Is 16, 32 or 100 GPU's substantial enough to pull it off? Probably not, I think - too much overhead, not enough interconnects... to coin a pun: "too RISCy". I must admit though that the research discussed in the technologyreview link is very interesting.
This whole thread is all over the place, so this seems as good a place as any to mention that, speaking of growing pot in California, you'd have to be smoking something yourself (ref. to TFA submitter) if you think you can turn up a private road or driveway and SEE pot plants growing under the clear blue sky. That's not how it's done.
The only plants grown outside are the handfuls here or there growing privately in back yards, or WAY off in the hills on public park land where nobody in particular can be pinned for it. All else is inside.
Oh and to the people advocating pot DUI being preferable to alcohol DUI - you're out of your minds. Any form of DUI is stupid, period. I have known people who are life-time pot smokers (they're the most accomplished and adjusted type you can get if you can imagine such a thing) who take a hit just to get through the day. I'm still uncomfortable driving with them - they don't know the limits of their vehicles, miss obvious signs and traffic signals, don't stay within the lanes - they're an accident waiting to happen. I don't care what your personal experiences are. It's LUCK and it should not be endorsed under any circumstance.
To be clear: I am in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana to where it holds the same degree of regulation as alcohol. Responsible use at home should be your business; taking it to the streets should be a matter for law enforcement.
"State law takes precedence, according to our Constitution."
This sounds incorrect from what I've been tracking in the news in recent months; Federal prosecutors are actively pursuing California pot growers who believe they are protected by paperwork that declares it for "medicinal purposes" under the assertion that state laws cannot countermand federal laws. You cannot have a federally controlled substance given the all clear on a state level.
There are some interesting things in the news from recent years:
This one supports your claim from 2006 This one however discusses federal charges against a guy who, according to the article, in federal court has no medicinal defense - the state laws don't protect him one bit (2007).
There's plenty more material on the subject out there, but here's an interesting home base for the folks seeking to reform federal law with numerous links to relevant news.
I mean really, really? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I know a NASA photographer who has been working there for darn near 40 years now and I've always understood that the entire photo library has always been freely accessible. I believe this is the first time they might be available over the INTERNET, but to the "public"? No more so than the public library is off limits because it is not published online. Anybody know better of this?
You're not the target demographic, I am. That gave me chills - I'm so stoked I can hardly wait. The original movie was a defining icon for my generation.
Yes, exactly like that - however with a bigger concentrator comes a bigger head of steam and real, useful power generation capacity. Should easily be able to make 1KW to 3KW with an optimized system. Beer bottles not recommended for final assembly.
So I'm not sure what death-ray-man has in mind, but the practical use for a heliostat type solar concentrator is to generate heat which could be used to create steam and drive a turbine such as a Tesla Turbine, a small stirling cycle heat engine, or (?) some sort of solar-pumped laser all of which can be fun/dangerous in their own ways.
Indeed - there are few women in construction too and you don't hear anyone groaning about that.
I will grant that sexism is still quite apparently rampant in the corporate world, but not for everyone. I have done my share of interviewing and hiring (programmers) and have hired several women and passed on many others - just the same with men. It wasn't for quotas, it was for finding the right candidate for the job.
I think it all boils down to the new generations of parents instilling in their children the moral value of mutual respect; then a new generation of people, men or women, black or white, will be able to pursue their interests without having to deal with discrimination, subtle or no.
It is really hard to train someone out of being a sexist or a bigot; forcing them to hire under a quota will not force them to change their resentful attitude towards that person in the work place. How often have you seen a co-worker hit a glass ceiling on the corporate ladder all because someone above had it out for them?
Legislation like this, I think, breeds resentment, not viable solutions; "don't ask, don't tell" for the U.S. armed forces was a good example of that. People should have the right to be pricks if they want; the rest of us have the right to disassociate ourselves with them if we want.
Amen. Interviewees who make it to my top three are the ones who are passionate about something that they've done on their own which is as technically demanding as the position. I specifically look for bright people who are self motivated - you can't get more self motivated than doing the stuff on your own free time. That does not mean a pale-faced social recluse who never leaves the basement.
This would be done at the hydrogen generation station, not on the vehicle: Split O2 from H2, put the H2 in the tank, release the O2 to the sky. O2 mixes well with Nitrogen - we have life as we know it thanks to that. It will dissipate with the normal movement of air and not make a dangerous rapid oxidation cloud ready to blow at any second. Moreover, electrolysis is SLOW process - it would take all day for this to slowly release.
O2 is only a problem when it is stored in volume. This can be done in limited amounts to pull away oxygen for medical or industrial (such as welding) purposes. But overall, H2 generation using this method will result in far more oxygen generation than can be utilized by industry.
The cycle is completed when H2 is "burned" in a car - both fuel cells and combustive methods require the joining of O2 and H2 to form water. Any oxygen volume released will be perfectly balanced by the use of the H2, so it is a neutral cycle with no impact to the environment or atmospheric conditions, etc.
It's plausible that burning hydrogen in an internal combustion may achieve similar efficiency to gasoline, but I want to say it's lower because it burns much hotter. It would take extra steps to handle the additional waste heat - that there is additional waste heat implies that there is energy efficiency lost to that heat.
Hydrogen would better serve us through fuel cell technology for electric power.
I don't have any data to go on, but I'd be curious about the total cost of ownership over the same lifetime of a battery powered car versus a fuel cell. Those batteries don't last for ever and they aren't "cheap" by any stretch of the imagination - and they're certainly not light on mass; Li-ion is discounted because it is not cost effective in bulk (yet).
Lobbyists I think cannot win this war. They have not succeeded in convincing the masses that cigarettes are good for you - even smokers don't believe that.
Anyway, at some point the blacksmith learned to make other things like car parts instead of horse shoes. The big oil companies will do the same. There will be plenty of money to be had in converting over to the hydrogen economy.
Without going off reading the link provided by narf314 there, another oft overlooked advantage is the centralization of energy consumption. With hydrogen cars running from grid-power generated H2, what was formerly two forms of energy consumption (burning coal separate from burning oil) now becomes one. By combining the two, you now have one problem to solve instead of two: improve the efficiency and renewable resources going into grid power. There is nothing doing with regard to burning oil in 200 million cars, but something can darn well be done about 10,000 power plants (or however many we have).
not really - the advantage of a home fueling system is you distribute the production capacity around a greater number of nodes so that each node only has to produce a comparatively small volume. A "station" cannot produce a small volume and do good business; electrolysis is extremely energy intensive and to make any reasonable dent in offsetting rising demand, you'd need to be pretty well situated near a substantial power supply.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen an industrial grade disc resurfacing machine that takes stacks of discs for polishing in a hopper - they cost MUCH more than a thousand (USD) and if you could have your discs treated in such a machine for a buck a piece, it'd be well worth it.
I've also done the toothpaste thing and there is a technique to it (not just randomly swirling it around) because what you are doing is making fine scratches with the paste abrasive and the lines must radiate from the center of the disc outward to be effective. I have restored unreadable discs to a state where data could be pulled from them - it's just good enough for last-ditch recovery, IMO - not something to count on using repeatedly.
A couple guesses are in order. I think that NASA would feel compelled to alert the president before disclosure if the discovery is of something dangerous, valuable, or contentious (any others?).
Dangerous: the planet's surface regolith is laced with high concentrations of plutonium ready for the taking - retrieval could be a cost effective source for nuclear reactor fuel which could end the world's energy woes. But then there's weapons...
Valuable: the planet's surface appears red because of all the tiny rubies laying around, but some of them are bigger, and it's only a matter of time before the world economy is tanked as a result of overzealous ruby harvesting for the laser manufacturing industry.
Contentious: they have found organic compounds that distinctly resemble theoretical models of early life on Earth reinforcing that evolution through chemistry is the origin of life, not miraculous creation.
Anyone else care to take a shot with out references to Jimmy Hoffa or Saddam's WMDs?
My sentiments exactly. I've read/heard on numerous occasions NASA's space shuttle touted as the single most complicated machine ever built by man. Come now, really? Does it really hold a candle to this? Unbelievable engineering effort.
Forgot to mention that a related concept that has been experimented with involves locating vast underground cavern networks and using surplus power to pressurize them with air and then release that air back through wind turbine generators when needed. Again there's a problem with scale; there isn't a single solution to our power needs (unless you listen to the insistent voices claiming that nuclear power solves everything).
You're right: using surplus power to pump water to a high elevation reservoir and running it back down through the pump as a turbine to generate power when needed would work; we've been doing it for decades. Now all we need are 10,000 of those...
Yes and no; asking users how to improve the interface is not the right approach because as you point out: users know nothing. However, asking them where they have problems, get lost, slow down, etc while using your interface is an excellent means of narrowing down on what problems your development team can solve. It focuses your attention on things that actually matter instead of on things that you only imagine are necessary.
Also, pure graphic design photoshop/illustrator producers who think they can design a website and a menu to look pretty should be kept well away from GUI production. Don't let them hypnotize you into thinking that they know what the hell they're doing with regard to intuitive interfaces that users will understand based on common interface design patterns.
Assuming it's a web application, if (as already mentioned) you don't have a GUI designer available, at the very least, have a capable application engineer get the code set up with proper CSS selectors applied to the output, then save the pages and tell the graphic designer to knock himself out with CSS that can be applied to the page. Everything achievable in CSS is allowed, everything else is not. Then you'll at least have a working app that looks "OK" if it wasn't already a train wreck to start with.
The original movie pushed the limits of technology that was current at the time. I see this sequel as pushing the limits of technology that is current at this time - I kind of dig that. I wouldn't want to see the same polygonal "digiverse" as originally presented.
I must disagree with your comment about it being a "formula" film however because in one respect you're right: 99% of what comes out of Hollywood is a formula film - so why should this be any different? The original was a formula film as well ; if you study mythic structure in writing ("The Hero with a Thousand Faces", Joseph Campbell for example), it becomes pretty easy to spot the identical plots between the likes of Star Wars and Tron and just about every other movie you've ever enjoyed. The formula itself is not what makes or breaks the movie...
On June 30 of this year, The New Yorker magazine published a fascinating, if at moments disturbing article entitled The Itch. The article discusses, among other things, the human mind's perception of the reality of its environment based on the various nervous inputs it has, vision included. Apparently this is an oft debated topic among the scientific community, but it was new information to me.
One of the things I found intriguing was the note that the bulk (80%) of the neural interconnections going into the visual cortex of the human brain come not from the optic nerves themselves, but from other areas of the brain including "functions like memory." The suggestion is that the eyes provide visible light input, but that the brain's processing of what it is looking at is primarily an act of abstract object/pattern reconstruction.
If you couple this notion with the limitations of the human eye itself -- such as the fact that the finest resolution/detail comes from an incredibly narrow region directly in the center of the FOV with rapidly decreasing information towards the extremities that ranges from soft profiles to mere suggestions of color, brightness and movement -- it strikes me that if researchers at MIT wish to replicate the model of human vision on any level close to reality, their input and processing systems should actually be modeled a bit like the real deal.
I believe that without a solid neural net with strong pattern recognition, instant recall, massive parallel processing - the finer things of the visual cortex - that human vision will not be possible with semiconductors. Is 16, 32 or 100 GPU's substantial enough to pull it off? Probably not, I think - too much overhead, not enough interconnects... to coin a pun: "too RISCy". I must admit though that the research discussed in the technologyreview link is very interesting.
This whole thread is all over the place, so this seems as good a place as any to mention that, speaking of growing pot in California, you'd have to be smoking something yourself (ref. to TFA submitter) if you think you can turn up a private road or driveway and SEE pot plants growing under the clear blue sky. That's not how it's done.
The only plants grown outside are the handfuls here or there growing privately in back yards, or WAY off in the hills on public park land where nobody in particular can be pinned for it. All else is inside.
Oh and to the people advocating pot DUI being preferable to alcohol DUI - you're out of your minds. Any form of DUI is stupid, period. I have known people who are life-time pot smokers (they're the most accomplished and adjusted type you can get if you can imagine such a thing) who take a hit just to get through the day. I'm still uncomfortable driving with them - they don't know the limits of their vehicles, miss obvious signs and traffic signals, don't stay within the lanes - they're an accident waiting to happen. I don't care what your personal experiences are. It's LUCK and it should not be endorsed under any circumstance.
To be clear: I am in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana to where it holds the same degree of regulation as alcohol. Responsible use at home should be your business; taking it to the streets should be a matter for law enforcement.
"State law takes precedence, according to our Constitution."
This sounds incorrect from what I've been tracking in the news in recent months; Federal prosecutors are actively pursuing California pot growers who believe they are protected by paperwork that declares it for "medicinal purposes" under the assertion that state laws cannot countermand federal laws. You cannot have a federally controlled substance given the all clear on a state level.
There are some interesting things in the news from recent years:
This one supports your claim from 2006
This one however discusses federal charges against a guy who, according to the article, in federal court has no medicinal defense - the state laws don't protect him one bit (2007).
There's plenty more material on the subject out there, but here's an interesting home base for the folks seeking to reform federal law with numerous links to relevant news.
I mean really, really? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I know a NASA photographer who has been working there for darn near 40 years now and I've always understood that the entire photo library has always been freely accessible. I believe this is the first time they might be available over the INTERNET, but to the "public"? No more so than the public library is off limits because it is not published online. Anybody know better of this?
You're not the target demographic, I am. That gave me chills - I'm so stoked I can hardly wait. The original movie was a defining icon for my generation.
messages that really can self destruct. A little over-current jolt and fzzzzzzzt!
There's such a thing as a non-technical FireFox user? I've never met one; it almost seems to be reserved for people who "get it".
"Fucking legislators, fucking ISPs and fucking, unreasonable and plain stupid bible-hugging assholes."
We need to get more of these fucking people fucking each other and see how they fucking like it.
Yes, exactly like that - however with a bigger concentrator comes a bigger head of steam and real, useful power generation capacity. Should easily be able to make 1KW to 3KW with an optimized system. Beer bottles not recommended for final assembly.
So I'm not sure what death-ray-man has in mind, but the practical use for a heliostat type solar concentrator is to generate heat which could be used to create steam and drive a turbine such as a Tesla Turbine, a small stirling cycle heat engine, or (?) some sort of solar-pumped laser all of which can be fun/dangerous in their own ways.
Indeed - there are few women in construction too and you don't hear anyone groaning about that.
I will grant that sexism is still quite apparently rampant in the corporate world, but not for everyone. I have done my share of interviewing and hiring (programmers) and have hired several women and passed on many others - just the same with men. It wasn't for quotas, it was for finding the right candidate for the job.
I think it all boils down to the new generations of parents instilling in their children the moral value of mutual respect; then a new generation of people, men or women, black or white, will be able to pursue their interests without having to deal with discrimination, subtle or no.
It is really hard to train someone out of being a sexist or a bigot; forcing them to hire under a quota will not force them to change their resentful attitude towards that person in the work place. How often have you seen a co-worker hit a glass ceiling on the corporate ladder all because someone above had it out for them?
Legislation like this, I think, breeds resentment, not viable solutions; "don't ask, don't tell" for the U.S. armed forces was a good example of that. People should have the right to be pricks if they want; the rest of us have the right to disassociate ourselves with them if we want.
Amen. Interviewees who make it to my top three are the ones who are passionate about something that they've done on their own which is as technically demanding as the position. I specifically look for bright people who are self motivated - you can't get more self motivated than doing the stuff on your own free time. That does not mean a pale-faced social recluse who never leaves the basement.
This would be done at the hydrogen generation station, not on the vehicle: Split O2 from H2, put the H2 in the tank, release the O2 to the sky. O2 mixes well with Nitrogen - we have life as we know it thanks to that. It will dissipate with the normal movement of air and not make a dangerous rapid oxidation cloud ready to blow at any second. Moreover, electrolysis is SLOW process - it would take all day for this to slowly release.
O2 is only a problem when it is stored in volume. This can be done in limited amounts to pull away oxygen for medical or industrial (such as welding) purposes. But overall, H2 generation using this method will result in far more oxygen generation than can be utilized by industry.
The cycle is completed when H2 is "burned" in a car - both fuel cells and combustive methods require the joining of O2 and H2 to form water. Any oxygen volume released will be perfectly balanced by the use of the H2, so it is a neutral cycle with no impact to the environment or atmospheric conditions, etc.
It's plausible that burning hydrogen in an internal combustion may achieve similar efficiency to gasoline, but I want to say it's lower because it burns much hotter. It would take extra steps to handle the additional waste heat - that there is additional waste heat implies that there is energy efficiency lost to that heat.
Hydrogen would better serve us through fuel cell technology for electric power.
I don't have any data to go on, but I'd be curious about the total cost of ownership over the same lifetime of a battery powered car versus a fuel cell. Those batteries don't last for ever and they aren't "cheap" by any stretch of the imagination - and they're certainly not light on mass; Li-ion is discounted because it is not cost effective in bulk (yet).
Lobbyists I think cannot win this war. They have not succeeded in convincing the masses that cigarettes are good for you - even smokers don't believe that.
Anyway, at some point the blacksmith learned to make other things like car parts instead of horse shoes. The big oil companies will do the same. There will be plenty of money to be had in converting over to the hydrogen economy.
Without going off reading the link provided by narf314 there, another oft overlooked advantage is the centralization of energy consumption. With hydrogen cars running from grid-power generated H2, what was formerly two forms of energy consumption (burning coal separate from burning oil) now becomes one. By combining the two, you now have one problem to solve instead of two: improve the efficiency and renewable resources going into grid power. There is nothing doing with regard to burning oil in 200 million cars, but something can darn well be done about 10,000 power plants (or however many we have).
not really - the advantage of a home fueling system is you distribute the production capacity around a greater number of nodes so that each node only has to produce a comparatively small volume. A "station" cannot produce a small volume and do good business; electrolysis is extremely energy intensive and to make any reasonable dent in offsetting rising demand, you'd need to be pretty well situated near a substantial power supply.