42 posts • joined Tuesday 14th July 2009 19:24 GMT
Back to analog
I bought an Otari MX 70 last year.
Although it takes time to align it, clean it, demagnetise the heads, etc, it definitely adds something to the recording.
I've tried plugins for tape saturation effects and some are pretty decent but definitely not as good as the real thing.
Also, when you work all day on computers its really nice to record music without having to stare at a bloody screen!
Are transverse radio waves the best signal type to search for?
In my opinion, its doubtful that advanced civilisations will utilize transverse radio wave communications, for deep space communications. We've had radio for about 100 years now and that is an exceptionally small period of time in the history of our civilisation- I doubt we will be using radio in its current form 100 years from now.
If we are hoping to find advanced alien civilisations by searching for radio waves I would imagine Tesla style longitudinal radio waves would make more sense as they should work better for ultra deep space communication.
I doubt that this would be the pick of choice though - surely an advanced civilisation would utilize the effect of quantum entanglement to communicate at instantaneous speeds over interplanetary distances.
Why does he bother?
LENR is now a scientifically verified fact with working systems available for purchase. If we have a solution to energy production and CO2 output then why aren't politicians promoting it? Maybe it's because Al Gore would lose millions in the carbon trading he is engaged in.
Re: Prior art?
Apple should employ Eric Dollard - he has an amazing grasp of Tesla wireless technology:
Personal time experience wont slow down as expected
If you are warping space to achieve FTL then the personal experience of time wont slow down as expected.
Personal time only slows down significantly if the people in the craft were approaching light speed in the traditional sense of acceleration.
However, warping space time means that the time around the craft is modified so the craft is not really travelling anywhere near light speed at all.
pointless when we have LENR
Fission is a dead technology.
LENR is getting serious credibility now with NASA bring out its own patents.
We should be investing research into this new field where the fuel source (nickle and hyrdogen) will power the human race for 100s of thousands of years!
YAAAAAWN! - just another project to be cancelled
This will just get cancelled by the next administration - same as Bushes Moon / Mars ideas.
Also, waste of money in my opinion. NASA would be better off bringing backing their advanced propulsion research.
Liquid thorium fluoride reactors
China are also investing serious research into Liquid Thorium Fluoride reactors.
The big advantage with this kind of reactor is that it does not use any weapons grade material.
Deplted uranium can be used in "dirty" bombs where as thorium would not have the same effect.
Therefore, China are better off (in my opinion) sticking with their own advanced fision research:
Also, a big advantage of liquid thorium flouride reactors is that they are a tested and PROVEN fision technology. Reactors have been built and have worked - as far back as the 1950s I think.
The reason that thorium fission was never implemented by the governments of the world was because they needed to subsidise the nuclear weapons industry. Also IT IS a very viable alternative to fossil fuel and that just wont do now will it?
The author of this article missed out the potential FTL communications capabilities for quantum entanglement. With 2 quantum entangled entities, any effect on 1 entity is replicated instantaneously in the corresponding entangled entity regardless of the distance between each entity. This means you could stick a rover on Mars and drive it round like a remote control car instead of having to wait 30 minutes uploading instructions. However, it doesn't sound like the scientists involved have achieved anything near the level of robustness in their experiment to achieve this....yet!
"but hoping this isnt a sham.."
I'll tell you what is more of a sham - the promise feasible hot fusion for over 60 years without a single watt of power gain and with billions (wasted) invested.
Or, the subsidising of the nuclear arms industry by selecting enriched uranium fission reaction technology over liquid thorium fluoride.
Lazy .NET developers
Maybe Silverlight is so favoured by .NET developers because they can't be arsed to learn the full array of web standards technologies.
Personally, I can't be arsed to learn how to develop for a plugin technology that offers little more than an increased threat window to your online browsing activities
In that case, try IE6
Hmmm, maybe you would prefer a browser that doesn't follow web standards, I suggest IE6.
It will probably render pages as intended by the author (with plenty of bad mark up and neglect for standards adherence) - that is if the author is Microsoft.
in cold countries - not at all!
In cold countries, energy efficient lighting will NOT save energy.
This is because with non-energy efficient lighting the bi-product of the inefficiency is heat!
In this case, the bi-product is useful and you will not save any energy at all.
In hot countries, where air conditioning is essential you will definitely save energy as the bi-product of normal bulbs is counter productive to the desired temperature.
If only the US senate had the same sense.
Computers programs do not need to be patentable.
You obfuscate your source code, compile it or do whatever you can to make it hard for someone to steal. That should be good enough!
The question is not whether we have a replacement for oil - there are hundreds of potential replacement energy technologies. The real question is about political will. I would love to see the UK government grow some balls and invest in true alternative energy research - e.g. ZPE, H H O, Thorium Fluoride Fission, etc...
Lets DITCH OIL NOW!
Waste of money
Since the concept of fusion was first proposed all we have heard is it will be realised in another 15 years - 80 years later and we are still 15 years away!
Here are some equally (if not more) deserving energy research projects
1) Zero point energy (scientific FACT that it exists, debatable whether it can be utilized). Practical & theoretical scientist Arie de Geus claimed to have done this by creating a battery which forces electrons through a thin enough film to reduce the ground state of the electron and thus release ZPE. After securing a contract to manufacture the batteries he was allegedly executed whilst sat in the air port car park (just before signing contracts for manufacture).
2) Thorium-Fluoride Nuclear Fission Reactor Tech - Actually successfully implemented by the US navy around the 50s or 60's. Much safer than enriched Uranium fission reaction technology, cheaper, more abundant, lower half life, etc... Hmmm, maybe that's why the US government bought up a lot of thorium in the 60's and then never bothered to develop it, we couldn't have the precious petro-dollar destroyed now could we?
3) Mono-atomic Hydrogen / Oxygen technology (H H O - aka Browns gas). Proven to output a greater calorific value than the electrical energy required to create it. The trick here will be making it safe. Can be used to weld metal to glass and other weird things. Flame can turn tungsten to molten mess in a matter of seconds but is only warm to the touch. Some scientists are suggesting that the reaction with metal is actually an electrical reaction and hence why it is not dangerous when applied to the skin.
4) Ultra-efficient H20 electrolysis - different than H H O technology described above. Uses overlaying pulsed electricity at specific frequencies to split H2 and O1 from H2O at lower energies than what can be harvested from burning the separated gas. Has been explained by Tom Bearden to potentially be using the negative-energy physics described by Paul Dirac.
I could go on.
Well done Google!
An open source video codec that trounces h264 is just what HTML5 needed.
Apple and Microsoft are suitably frustrated with Google's move because Google have effectively flushed millions of dollars of Apple and Microsoft h264 investment down the toilet.
Lets not forget, Google own youtube.
By moving youtube to WebM, Microsoft and Apple will have to support it eventually.
If they don't support it then they will certainly loose browser market share (and quite rightly so).
Yawwwn- silver waste of time.
Hmmm. I would seriously discourage developers from using Silverlight in their projects for the following reasons:
1) A big chunk of browsing is now done on smart phones, most of which do not (and will never) support Silverlight.
2) Silverlight will never be truly cross platform unless Microsoft release a decent linux version. At the moment we have Moonlight (LOL) which is a pile of steaming manure. I've tried moonlight on my ubuntu laptop- what a waste of time, only 20% of Silverlight sites seem to work.
3) With IE9 in development, HTML5 is round the corner and it will be a truly cross platform standard.
4) Video - If Google open source on2's VP8 in May then HTML5 video will definitely be the future of online video.
Where would I use Silveright?
At a push I would consider it for an intranet application where I don't have to worry about cross-platform compatibility because the company has a "everybody uses windows anyway, init?" mantra.
Yawwwn- silverwhat now?
Silverwhat? Never seen it on a useful website, never needed to use it, never will use it, never will bother developing for it.
By 2014 %50 of all browsing will be done on mobile phones.
At least 50% of these phones will be running linux or bsd.
This means that Silverlight is doomed and Microsoft know it - that's why they are finally taking HTML5 seriously.
Silver waste of time
Silverlight runs on 1 computer platform (Windows), limps along on the Mac and fails miserably on Linux because Microsoft haven't developed it (its a ground up pseudo-open source version sponsored by Novel)
I dread to think how it will perform on the Nokia.
The web is about standards now guys, Silverlight is sooooo out of fashion its untrue.
Sat here at school - using Firefox and open office
There is a problem with schools and their choices they make about software and other ICT purchases. The problem is that many schools lack the technical understanding and ICT support framework to feel confident about using open source software. There is always a risk in moving from one ICT model to another - I think that BECTA should be providing more information about the likely cost savings and also they should be asking more schools to take part in case studies.
We use windows XP, windows 7, Microsoft office and (dare I say it) Internet Explorer 8 on most of our computers. We have a good understanding of the benefits of open source but we are concerned about retraining teachers to use linux or open office.
Having said that, there are an increasing number of teachers who do not want to use Internet Explorer - quite a few are using Firefox and Chrome. We even have one teacher who uses Ubuntu (and loves it).
I think we will have success in the future in moving towards products like open office and Ubuntu because the user perception of open source products in our school is generally good.
Basically, all I'm saying here is that schools should be AWARE that there are alternatives and they should be playing with the technology and planning pilots.
We use Linux for some of our back office stuff and it works AMAZINGLY well. We have been running servers for years with minimal downtime. When we have had downtime it has been down to mistakes made by support staff working on the servers. The last time I rebooted my web server it had been running for 247 days straight! I think the issue here is that the general user base are usually unaware that they are accessing web services from a Linux box.
I actually make a point of telling staff that our VLE, website and ticketing system all run on Linux.
I make this point because other systems which fail more regularly use a Microsoft OS.
I tried chrome last night on my Ubuntu laptop - its very very fast.
In fact, compared to Firefox on Ubuntu it goes like lightening.
I'm not sure I'm ready to do all my browsing in Chrome yet but its tempting. I suppose the only thing that I'm worried about is what private data Google are probably harvesting from my web activities whilst I'm using it!
What a joke.
This is a perfect example of why software should not be patentable.
Maybe Microsoft will try to patent the wheel next.
Down with sofware patents!
This is a perfect example of why patent law should not apply to software.
Patenting the technology which enables AJAX or embedding plugins in a page is like patenting the wheel. This is ridiculous. I think the company who owns these patents should grow up.
@By Robin 2
"IE8 is about 3 times faster at rendering my pages than Firefox 3.5".
Really? Really? Did I read that correctly?
I've done plenty of bench marks with Firefox 3.5 and Firefox whips IE8 every time.
E.g. with jquery, lightboxing with affects looks smooth on Firefox 3.5 where as with IE8 it is jerky.
Are you running Firefox 3.5 with a stupid number of extensions and with Firebug enabled because if that's the case, yes it could take longer to render. That's not a fault with Firefox, its a fault with the user.
"Great stuff from Microsoft. Should save my company a bomb."
I use php, apache, lighttpd, mysql, postgres, eclipse, xhtml, css, javascipt as my core web technologies.
All of them free.
I also do 100% of my company development work using Ubuntu - again 100% free.
Saved MY company a bomb.
More importantly, saved my CLIENTS a bomb.
Wake up, Microsoft's developer offerings are there to increase their market share and when they reach their targets, they will introduce fees - or make the server side technology more expensive for your clients.
Silverlight is only available on Windows and the Mac (although I've heard pretty bad things from Mac users).
Moonlight, a crappy Novell attempt at reverse engineering silversh1te, is the *nix flavour of the plug-in.
So in short - no it is not available on all platforms now.
Until Microsoft create a Linux version themselves it is not a cross-platform solution, period.
I tried to watch Demons using ITV player and unfortunately because I use Ubuntu (with Novell's crappy Moonlight) it didn't work once.
Thankfully Linux users will now be able to enjoy the few quality shows ITV have to offer.
Silverlight will be forever burdened by a hidden OS agenda- lets hope that this recent ditching of Silverlight is just one of the first of many nails in its coffin.
At least Flash works on most operating systems (including 64bit Linux). Still, the fact that in 2009 we have to install a browser based plugin to watch video at all is pretty laughable- Roll on HTML 5!
I'm a professional web developer and I have friends working in the industry.
I have seen an enormous increase in web developers taking W3C standards importantly and understanding the importance of platform neutrality- especially with the public take-up of smart phones (many of which do not have Flash).
I have seen Flash only sites being replaced by xhtml / css / js driven sites.
Flash is more of a site enhancement tool now than a platform for delivering the entire web page.
Oh, BTW - You are NOT a web developer if you spend most of your time developing Flash or Silverlight sites. You are a Flash or Silverlight developer.
Only W3C technologies are WEB technologies as they follow the ideology of the web as set out by Sir Tim.
Flash and Silverlight are more like RIA technologies.
Moonlight, what a joke.
I have this piece of crap installed on my Ubuntu laptop for over 1 year and it simply does not work!
I have always kept it upgraded to the latest version to find that only 25% of silverlight "enriched" websites work fully.
If Microsoft want this to be a viable cross-platform technology then they should commit to developing the Linux version themselves. Or even better, Microsoft should realise that most professional web developers would prefer them to start implementing SVG and HTML5 into their crappy web browser.
@alan bourke - Cross-platformness
Mono Develop is not a viable Silverlight development IDE.
Although Microsoft have submitted C# to the ECMA, they haven't opened up the dot net framework.
There are no guarantees that Microsoft wont raise a patent issue over Mono in the future.
The current Novell-Microsoft Stalin/Hilter-esque pact will expire in the near future and what then?
Again, Silverlight is not a decent cross-platform web technology.
It is an RIA technology with vendor tie in written all over it.
Please wake up.
@windywoo - flash barely cross platform
windywoo, I'm not a big flash fan myself.
However, I use Ubuntu 64 with the latest 64bit Flash plugin and it runs like a dream.
Its way faster and smoother than Flash on my windows PC.
The Firefox Moonlight extension from Novell on the other-hand is absolute poo.
I tried to use it to watch some ITV shows via ITVplayer- FAIL!
Silverlight may be criticised for not being cross platform and quite rightly so!
You forgot to post this article on April the 1st, didn't you?
Alan Bourke - I disagree
What's wrong with HTML 5. It's HTML, that's what wrong with it.
Alan - if you think that Silverlight is superior to HTML then you are certainly unqualified to discuss the merits of browser pugin technologies.
If you have poor moral standards and think that supporting monopolies is OK then carry on blowing your trumpet for the OS agenda inspired Silverlight.
Personally, I will carry on creating professional web applications which work on EVERY web browser and every platform.
Also, your claim that Linux developers slag Silverlight off without understanding the technology is completely false. I understand the technology perfectly well and I can see that there are some merits to the architecture when compared to some areas of Flash. However, Adobe have at least made a stable 32bit and 64bit plugin for Linux.
Whether you like it or not, Linux has a big future and it is completely irresponsible to develop web sites or applications that are unlikely to function on it. A big part of web development is accessibility - if the site will never work for 1% of operating systems then you are making the site in-accessible for those users.
SEG - standards compliant sites are on the rise fool!
SEG - drawing an analogy between web standards and world peace is retarded.
We already have a web where pretty much every web page will work perfectly on any operating system and web browser (besides those old activeX infected sites that professional web developers mock regularly). This is because the W3C do a fantastic job of developing and standardising the technologies that make the web work.
So what you are really saying is that its OK to take a perfectly good model for the WWW and shaft it by introducing OS vendor lock-in technologies.
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Three offers free US roaming, confirms stealth 4G rollout
- Justin Bieber BEGGED for a $200k RIM JOB – and got REJECTED