Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:use the host as powersource - a la Matrix (Score 1) 473

As a reference, a strenuous ride on a bicycle generates about 500W of kinetic energy. Probably a light arm curl of one arm could easily generate 5% of that. 25W does not sound like much, because the Glass probably uses a few Watts, and 5 minutes of arm curl for every hour of use would be socially unacceptable, it would look funny.to say the least. Not to mention the contraption that one would need to wear on his arm to harvest the energy.

I'm sure a special shoe could easily generate many watts just by the wearer walking, and it is socially acceptable (at least outside the US).

Or there could be a special hat, which would have three functions:
- solar cells on the top
- casting a shadow so that less power is needed for the display projector
- being able to switch between augmented reality and virtual reality

It could look like this proven design: http://bit.ly/160kqxD

Comment: Short attention span (Score 1) 473

Dear poster, don't you remember an article a short while ago, explaining how a pretty old chipset is used in the device? With a chipset that's many years fresher, it will be possible to both go down in power consumption and increase performance. I'm sure most other components, including the battery, were thought to improve in energy efficiency.

Comment: Re:energy? (Score 1) 328

by robi5 (#43578721) Attached to: Genetically Modified Plants To Produce Natural Lighting

> That's probably close to the high end of what's possible, and I doubt their first attempt will be that good, but it is more than I expected. If you have good night vision, and if you sat right up against a bush, it may be just enough to (uncomfortably) read by. If all you have is typical size potted plant you'll only get a tiny fraction of that much light though.... maybe 5% of that.

One can still read the leaves. It's an Organic Light Emitting Device.
Seriously, while at it, program the light emission to be triggered by some external stimulus, such as UV light. Also, maybe different leaf areas can be selected for different UV light frequency sensitivities. It would be fun to watch pulsating shrubbery.

Comment: Re:chicken or egg? (Score 1) 269

by robi5 (#43257871) Attached to: GCC 4.8.0 Release Marks Completion of C++ Migration

If much of the population is wiped out and a few centuries of nomadity steps in, then most of those surface-brought metals etc. will have vanished, corroded away, or became impossible to process. I think that any oil and gas reserves on the surface or near it will be exhausted, depleted, contaminated etc. first. Then in those few hundred years, those mutants will have forgotten what any remaining artifacts are; and maybe another few thousand years will elapse when steel is the new gold.

So let's get real, if a catastrophe occurs that stops civilization for more than a few decades, we might be in it for a long ride again.

There is a tightrope as well: if all fossils become quickly inaccessible but otherwise we remain intact (water/nuclear power plants etc.) then it may bring about an accelerated route to solar based economy, the end of the asphalt roads and beginning of glass / ceramics roads etc.

Comment: Re:Morbid and largely pointless (Score 2) 85

by robi5 (#43066683) Attached to: Scientists Transplant Functional Eyes On the Tails of Tadpoles

Can you explain how amphibians are very simple organisms? Even a single cell is not simple. Are you assuming that the next levels of abstraction, tissues, organs and amphibian bodies, are somehow very simple? Or are they just different and somewhat simpler / more rudimentary relative to reptiles? Can we say that in the tree of life, we are mammals, all mammals are reptiles and all reptiles are amphibians, evolutionarily speaking?

Comment: Re:Time to burn some points. HEY MBA STUPID PEOPLE (Score 1) 347

by robi5 (#42543911) Attached to: Change the ThinkPad and It Will Die

Indeed I should not have made assumptions about your readings even if your familiarity was not apparent in your post. What I mean by strawman arguments is present in your response as well. You should not assume that people equate plastic to inferiority; more likely they equate bendy, twisting, creaking cases, dust-collecting seams and an unappealing tactile sensation with low quality, and in most cases this is a good gauge even if the product has fast components, great battery life and impact resistance. On a statistical basis, excellent designs have good to great components and few of the listed problems. The reason is the difference in the design process. Apple designers or the IBM Thinkpad designers understood this and for them, putting together a product was different from hardware architecture + assembly. There are some interesting readings of what went into Thinkpad desings and how they formulated their design language.

In your response referring to ZAMM, there is a strawman again, as the serviceability (and impact resistance, type of material etc.) of a product is mostly orthogonal to the question of subjectively experienced quality. For example, my R.A.T. mouse is attractive to look, hold and use; its exterior is mostly matte plastic that's not brittle and not flimsy, being ergonomic just the right way. It is also a most serviceable mouse, with accessible screws and a wide range of adjustment options. Impact resistance is good. A lot of thought went into it and the use is flawless, the feel is premium.

So let's not assume that someone who is knocking a product as plasticky or having a cheap feel can be reduced to the obvious observation that a product that contains plastic actually contains plastic. It would be childish. If it feels cheap or plasticky, then it's something some of us will possibly avoid. Bringing in aspects of design does not imply that your discussion partner misunderstood ZAMM, it might have been your way of returning some hostility.

Comment: Re:How is this news? (Score 1) 453

by robi5 (#42539925) Attached to: The Problem With Internet Dating's Frictionless Market

The solution cries out for global search, the uncorrelated exploration of the search space, the determination of the minimal number of iterations and number of Markov chains, stopping criteria and estimates of bias. The problem is given, the population size is known and the benefits of an optimal heuristic are obvious. May the trappings of greedy search and gradient descent be avoided! The low friction of search steps makes it more likely, rather than less likely to find a reasonably good answer to a key question of our life, if we first sample the search space widely, but eventually converge to the One.

Comment: Re:Lenovo Thinkpads Already Suck (Score 1) 347

by robi5 (#42539739) Attached to: Change the ThinkPad and It Will Die

The LCD screen of my W520 moves around loosely in the screen bezel. Also, there was a leftover plastic bit between the screen and the bezel, resulting in a huge gap. The plastics feel like cheap noname Chinese brands rather than the matte velvety surface of the Thinkpad 600 series or the Newton Messagepad. There is creaking etc. when the machine is held. It dies often under Windows (what it came with). The official Lenovo Ultrabay hard drive caddy is thinner than the bay, resulting in a huge gap, letting dust in the machine. I don't care about the dead pixel in comparison. The LCD (good color gamut but TN) has 1080 rows on a 15.6" screen vs. 1050 rows on my very old 12.1" X60 tablet (IPS), wow. The keyboard is still best of class, but they placed silly "paging" keys directly among the previously well-separated arrow island. The ThinkLight sucks, partly because the keys became shiny after little use and glare (screams 'used old clunker' in daylight). They put a huge and hideous shiny plastic-chrome "lenovo" logo on the lid, and it is the polar opposite design language of the still-retained, understated "ThinkPad" logo, which is spun matte metal and a decent font. It's still a good machine, much better than the X1 et al with low memory, glare, screen-heavy design and poor screen resolution.

Comment: Re:Time to burn some points. HEY MBA STUPID PEOPLE (Score 1) 347

by robi5 (#42539463) Attached to: Change the ThinkPad and It Will Die

Read some Robert Pirsig and Christopher Alexander, they open you up to the objective nature and depth of things like quality. With consumer products, there are exceptions, but some very mainstream manufacturers (er.. gadget brand owners) sell only cheap, plasticky products, not to mention knockoff makers. No one said it is impossible to build great products from plastic, or that such products don't exist, but the generalization about inferiority was fairly valid. If a reviewer says it feels cheap, flimsy and plasticky, at least I know what to expect (I'd rather spend 20% more for something that feels better to use). However don'd build up a childish strawman argument, they don't write it simply based on the construction material which is but one element of the overall feel. For example, the Nexus 7 or the HTC One X are praised instead. Determining instrument-measurable criteria for determining quality would be an interesting research project. In the meantime I don't need to think a product is cheap, I just need to feel it and move on to alternatives.

Comment: What's so new about it ethically? (Score 1) 233

Even now, there may be an identical twin zygote in a freezer from a former in vitro fertilization that can be thawed. So while the accessibility of this option can be increased by cloning, it wouldn't be a new sort of ethical problem, it would perhaps be a new societal issue.

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.

Working...