When I read what the 'invention' does, my first thought was that I had never regarded getting the batteries in in the right direction as being a significant problem. My second thought was to imagine how I would solve that problem if I were going to worry about it. I immediately realized that there must be both positive and negative terminals at both ends of the compartment for each cell. I also realized that this could be made to work because the positive terminal on these types of cells protrudes. I imagined an annular negative terminal surrounding a slightly depressed positive contact in the middle. This would work and it is very similar to what MS claims to have 'invented'. I don't think I thought about it for more than ten seconds. I claim that the solution fails to pass the obviousness test. What had apparently not been so obvious was that there was any significant problem in the first place.
To solve a given tough computing problem, we have technologies that make it possible to build a complex software system to solve the problem by cobbling together appropriate software modules. A primary advantage of such an approach is that it leads to faster development. However, it rarely leads to an implementation that is efficient in terms of either size or performance. A system designed specifically to solve only the given problem and built carefully from the ground up can normally work much more efficiently using less resources. I would expect similar limitations would apply with the modular satellite systems. However, given the enormous costs involved in launching such hardware, inefficiencies of any sort cannot be tolerated easily. I suspect that this program will ultimately fail in its primary objective. However, I expect that there will come out of the effort improvements in the ways that many of the problems in satellite technology are addressed. Such improvements will be imitated in future bottom-up developments.
Yes, readability is the main issue. However, there are circumstances when readability does argue for longer lines. In my code, I try to emphasize similar structure in adjacent code lines when it exists by using horizontal white space to get related elements on adjacent lines to line up. Then it is easier for myself and others to see what is actually different from one line to the next. If the similar lines extend to 100 columns, then the long lines are more readable than if the same code lines had been forced to occupy two lines each because, when they are split, you can no longer see easily how things line up in the now alternating lines.
Comments also contribute to readability. When my code has complex logic, I normally try to keep the code lines short; but I then use the space to the right to write comments that give a running commentary on what the code to the left is doing. There are essentially two columns: one for code, one for comments. The correspondence between each such comment and the code to which it applies is much clearer this way. More often than not, this useful style also requires lines longer than 80 columns.
There are circumstances which argue for longer lines; and any bureaucracy which prohibits such considered use is, IMO, counterproductive. I believe that it is more important for the programmer to be able to use his judgment about what approach will lead to the most readable code. The more interesting problem might be how about to instill good judgment in this regard.
A number of the comments here seem to take the view that one source of listings is as good as any other. However, the power of getting the listings data (as opposed to a look at formatted listings) is that you can then use software to read that data and find all the programs that might interest you. The XMLTV package itself offers a number of tools for scanning the data and selecting programs based on rules you specify. There also exist other application programs which have sophisticated search capabilities for treating XML program data. The number of different TV stations I receive now is staggering. I would waste much more time finding the programs I want to watch if I did not have software that automatically weeds out most of what I would not care to consider. Furthermore, there are programs, which would interest me and which I would enjoy watching, but which I would miss if I did not have the tool to spot them for me because it would just take too much time for me to scan for such shows in the listings for all the stations which I rarely watch.
You're misinterpreting the intention of the 10,000 times figure. What you need to compare is what is wasted.
I think I interpreted it in the way most folks interpret "efficiency". However, given that that interpretation leads to an absurd conclusion, I agree that one might seek another interpretation that would have a better chance of making sense. Indeed, applying the factor to the wasted energy instead of to the output energy does make more sense even if that is not exactly what was stated. However, even that interpretation implies that they are claiming that it is very nearly 100% efficient (specifically, greater than 99.99%); and that claim is not actually credible either. Not even a motor-generator can do anywhere near that well.
Another clue that the article should not be taken seriously is the following quote: "Peter Dallos of Northwestern University in Illinois, US, which patented the prestin molecule in 2003, says prestin may be 10,000 times more efficient at generating power than the best manmade material." That makes no sense. Efficiencies for converting mechanical power to electricity can be quite high (e.g., greater than 80%). Even if one were talking about efficiencies on the order of only 20% (such as we see with photovoltaic cells), 10,000 times that would be 2000%. Even proponents of perpetual motion machines would probably regard as ludicrous the claim that you could get 20 times as much electrical energy out as mechanical energy put in. My guess is that the folks at IntAct Labs are trying to create a buzz with this nonsense because a stock offering for the outfit is in the offing. I would not touch it.
I have a gmail account which I am not using, and it has gone for months without my accessing it. Yet the account continues to exist. I think it is clear that Lycos's policy is designed to generate revenue. It does so in a way that is bound to antagonize the users.
I also tried the experiment with ReadNotify. On receiving the bugged message in Outlook Express, the interesting thing I discovered is that the recipient version of me was informed that the sender was seeking confirmation of receipt. I have OE configured to make that response optional, and I refused to allow the confirmation. Of course, with the bug in there, the ReadNotify system knew I had opened the message anyway. Thus there is an interesting deception going on here. You think that you have declined to return an acknowledgement of receipt, while one has gone out anyway.
frovingslosh proclaimed, "People add their own imperceptable delays to keypresses,...." Yes, but the keyboard (or whatever) does not have to send the characters at the same instant they are typed. It can wait for the next multiple of some fraction of a second - e.g..25sec - and then add its delays to those now-regularized instants in time. As long as the 'encoding' occasionally induces no delay, the listener can get synched up with the sender. It's not a problem if some instants are skipped. It is not a problem if the typist manages a burst that exceeds the maximum rate, as characters sent between the regularized instants would not have to carry information. (Actually, the 'regularization' does not even have to be uniform as long as it is predictable.)
No one can reasonably hold the belief that VHS is of higher quality than DVD.
For prerecorded media, this difference is indeed undeniable. However, I suspect that there are many folks who assume that digital is better and such folks may erroneously believe that, for recording purposes, their DVR is of higher quality than VHS. The encoders in my Scientific Atlanta set top DVR are lousy in my opinion, and I do not use it to record analog feeds. (The quality it can achieve on digital feeds is great.) For high speed sports action, I find that even EP (aka SLP) speed gives better results than the DVR. In practice, I mostly use SP speed Super VHS, which normally entails virtually no degradation from the live analog feed.
The DVR can do (barely) OK on analog only if there is no high speed motion and if the signal is relatively free of noise. For me, there are few shows which qualify.
Slashdot Mirror
When I read what the 'invention' does, my first thought was that I had never regarded getting the batteries in in the right direction as being a significant problem. My second thought was to imagine how I would solve that problem if I were going to worry about it. I immediately realized that there must be both positive and negative terminals at both ends of the compartment for each cell. I also realized that this could be made to work because the positive terminal on these types of cells protrudes. I imagined an annular negative terminal surrounding a slightly depressed positive contact in the middle. This would work and it is very similar to what MS claims to have 'invented'. I don't think I thought about it for more than ten seconds. I claim that the solution fails to pass the obviousness test. What had apparently not been so obvious was that there was any significant problem in the first place.
To solve a given tough computing problem, we have technologies that make it possible to build a complex software system to solve the problem by cobbling together appropriate software modules. A primary advantage of such an approach is that it leads to faster development. However, it rarely leads to an implementation that is efficient in terms of either size or performance. A system designed specifically to solve only the given problem and built carefully from the ground up can normally work much more efficiently using less resources. I would expect similar limitations would apply with the modular satellite systems. However, given the enormous costs involved in launching such hardware, inefficiencies of any sort cannot be tolerated easily. I suspect that this program will ultimately fail in its primary objective. However, I expect that there will come out of the effort improvements in the ways that many of the problems in satellite technology are addressed. Such improvements will be imitated in future bottom-up developments.
Yes, readability is the main issue. However, there are circumstances when readability does argue for longer lines. In my code, I try to emphasize similar structure in adjacent code lines when it exists by using horizontal white space to get related elements on adjacent lines to line up. Then it is easier for myself and others to see what is actually different from one line to the next. If the similar lines extend to 100 columns, then the long lines are more readable than if the same code lines had been forced to occupy two lines each because, when they are split, you can no longer see easily how things line up in the now alternating lines.
Comments also contribute to readability. When my code has complex logic, I normally try to keep the code lines short; but I then use the space to the right to write comments that give a running commentary on what the code to the left is doing. There are essentially two columns: one for code, one for comments. The correspondence between each such comment and the code to which it applies is much clearer this way. More often than not, this useful style also requires lines longer than 80 columns.
There are circumstances which argue for longer lines; and any bureaucracy which prohibits such considered use is, IMO, counterproductive. I believe that it is more important for the programmer to be able to use his judgment about what approach will lead to the most readable code. The more interesting problem might be how about to instill good judgment in this regard.
A number of the comments here seem to take the view that one source of listings is as good as any other. However, the power of getting the listings data (as opposed to a look at formatted listings) is that you can then use software to read that data and find all the programs that might interest you. The XMLTV package itself offers a number of tools for scanning the data and selecting programs based on rules you specify. There also exist other application programs which have sophisticated search capabilities for treating XML program data. The number of different TV stations I receive now is staggering. I would waste much more time finding the programs I want to watch if I did not have software that automatically weeds out most of what I would not care to consider. Furthermore, there are programs, which would interest me and which I would enjoy watching, but which I would miss if I did not have the tool to spot them for me because it would just take too much time for me to scan for such shows in the listings for all the stations which I rarely watch.
Another clue that the article should not be taken seriously is the following quote: "Peter Dallos of Northwestern University in Illinois, US, which patented the prestin molecule in 2003, says prestin may be 10,000 times more efficient at generating power than the best manmade material." That makes no sense. Efficiencies for converting mechanical power to electricity can be quite high (e.g., greater than 80%). Even if one were talking about efficiencies on the order of only 20% (such as we see with photovoltaic cells), 10,000 times that would be 2000%. Even proponents of perpetual motion machines would probably regard as ludicrous the claim that you could get 20 times as much electrical energy out as mechanical energy put in. My guess is that the folks at IntAct Labs are trying to create a buzz with this nonsense because a stock offering for the outfit is in the offing. I would not touch it.
I have a gmail account which I am not using, and it has gone for months without my accessing it. Yet the account continues to exist. I think it is clear that Lycos's policy is designed to generate revenue. It does so in a way that is bound to antagonize the users.
I also tried the experiment with ReadNotify. On receiving the bugged message in Outlook Express, the interesting thing I discovered is that the recipient version of me was informed that the sender was seeking confirmation of receipt. I have OE configured to make that response optional, and I refused to allow the confirmation. Of course, with the bug in there, the ReadNotify system knew I had opened the message anyway. Thus there is an interesting deception going on here. You think that you have declined to return an acknowledgement of receipt, while one has gone out anyway.
frovingslosh proclaimed, "People add their own imperceptable delays to keypresses, ... ." Yes, but the keyboard (or whatever) does not have to send the characters at the same instant they are typed. It can wait for the next multiple of some fraction of a second - e.g. .25sec - and then add its delays to those now-regularized instants in time. As long as the 'encoding' occasionally induces no delay, the listener can get synched up with the sender. It's not a problem if some instants are skipped. It is not a problem if the typist manages a burst that exceeds the maximum rate, as characters sent between the regularized instants would not have to carry information. (Actually, the 'regularization' does not even have to be uniform as long as it is predictable.)
No one can reasonably hold the belief that VHS is of higher quality than DVD.
For prerecorded media, this difference is indeed undeniable. However, I suspect that there are many folks who assume that digital is better and such folks may erroneously believe that, for recording purposes, their DVR is of higher quality than VHS. The encoders in my Scientific Atlanta set top DVR are lousy in my opinion, and I do not use it to record analog feeds. (The quality it can achieve on digital feeds is great.) For high speed sports action, I find that even EP (aka SLP) speed gives better results than the DVR. In practice, I mostly use SP speed Super VHS, which normally entails virtually no degradation from the live analog feed.
The DVR can do (barely) OK on analog only if there is no high speed motion and if the signal is relatively free of noise. For me, there are few shows which qualify.