"Hello, Customer! (not Customer? click here)"

Post a reply to this message

"Widescreen LCDs are easier to make."

Um, WTF? Why would *that* be??



Also... I just touched my desk and got a static shock. (Like I always 
do, several times per day.) But this time, my LCD monitor went black for 
a second just as I got the shock. WTF?! o_O

Post a reply to this message

I've had too many bad experiences with dell. Fans and other random hardware 
dying on a consistant basis.
Thats why all of my comps at home are HP. Haven't had a single problem with 
them since my old 8370 circa 1998.
Back then they blew about as much as the imac I tried. I went through 6 
mobos and 4 monitors with that accursed machine. It wasn't even first 
gen...it turned me off completely to all things mac.

My next comp will probably be a Cray CX1. Those look sweeeet!
The only way I'm getting that one though is if funding for this biofuels 
startup comes through.
One never knows with those things though...I've been involved in enough tech 
startups to not beleive anything until I see the money in my account. ;-D

ian

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:49b7a362@news.povray.org...
> "Widescreen LCDs are easier to make."
>
> Um, WTF? Why would *that* be??
>
>
>
> Also... I just touched my desk and got a static shock. (Like I always do, 
> several times per day.) But this time, my LCD monitor went black for a 
> second just as I got the shock. WTF?! o_O
>

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> I've had too many bad experiences with dell. Fans and other random hardware 
> dying on a consistant basis.

They wouldn't be _my_ first choice either, frankly.

> Thats why all of my comps at home are HP. Haven't had a single problem with 
> them since my old 8370 circa 1998.

HP probably would be. And hey, I gather there are moves afoot for the 
company to eventually switch from Dell to HP. But for now... I'm stuck 
with Dell.

> My next comp will probably be a Cray CX1. Those look sweeeet!

O_O

> The only way I'm getting that one though is if funding for this biofuels 
> startup comes through.
> One never knows with those things though...I've been involved in enough tech 
> startups to not beleive anything until I see the money in my account. ;-D

Uh, yeah... enjoy that one.

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:49b7ad8a$1@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> I've had too many bad experiences with dell. Fans and other random 
>> hardware dying on a consistant basis.
>
> They wouldn't be _my_ first choice either, frankly.
>
>> Thats why all of my comps at home are HP. Haven't had a single problem 
>> with them since my old 8370 circa 1998.
>
> HP probably would be. And hey, I gather there are moves afoot for the 
> company to eventually switch from Dell to HP. But for now... I'm stuck 
> with Dell.

Yeah...never underestimate the effect of commercials on the CIO...

>> My next comp will probably be a Cray CX1. Those look sweeeet!
>
> O_O

They aren't *too* terribly expensive, especially considering what you get.
http://www.cray.com/Products/CX1.aspx

I think that computer, close to maxed out, could hold my interest for a few 
years at least. As long as it plays DOOM, right? ;-D

>> The only way I'm getting that one though is if funding for this biofuels 
>> startup comes through.
>> One never knows with those things though...I've been involved in enough 
>> tech startups to not beleive anything until I see the money in my 
>> account. ;-D
>
> Uh, yeah... enjoy that one.

Yeah, its been interesting so far. A decent amount of cash has come my way 
in the last few months. I'm just glad that it isn't MY startup...someone 
else can deal with all of the annoying crap. I'm just in it for the $$$, 
beyond that I couldn't give less of a crap.

ian

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:

> Yeah...never underestimate the effect of commercials on the CIO...

Yes. Unlike the IT experts, the commercials use small words that a CIO 
can actually understand. :-P

>>> My next comp will probably be a Cray CX1. Those look sweeeet!
>> O_O
> 
> They aren't *too* terribly expensive, especially considering what you get.
> http://www.cray.com/Products/CX1.aspx

OK, let me get this straight: USD  $10,079.00 for a *bare* system??

$91.00 for the POWER CORD?!

Are you mental?? For that money, I could buy three HP DL380s! :-P

Mind you, put 4 CT5401 blades in it, and we have USD  $44,795.00. That's 
a lot of CPU and GPU, right there... And still less than the price of my 
mum's house.

> I think that computer, close to maxed out, could hold my interest for a few 
> years at least. As long as it plays DOOM, right? ;-D

Er, yeah. My freakin *laptop* can do that while running Linux UNDER 
SOFTWARE EMULATION! :-P

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:49b7b3b7$1@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>
>> Yeah...never underestimate the effect of commercials on the CIO...
>
> Yes. Unlike the IT experts, the commercials use small words that a CIO can 
> actually understand. :-P

;-D

>>>> My next comp will probably be a Cray CX1. Those look sweeeet!
>>> O_O
>>
>> They aren't *too* terribly expensive, especially considering what you 
>> get.
>> http://www.cray.com/Products/CX1.aspx
>
> OK, let me get this straight: USD  $10,079.00 for a *bare* system??
>
> $91.00 for the POWER CORD?!

lol...I'm sure its a nice cord. :-p

> Are you mental?? For that money, I could buy three HP DL380s! :-P
>
> Mind you, put 4 CT5401 blades in it, and we have USD  $44,795.00. That's a 
> lot of CPU and GPU, right there... And still less than the price of my 
> mum's house.

Product Information
Model CRAY CX1
Total Processors 12 CPUs
Total Memory 272 GB RAM
Total Storage 2000 GB

Configuration Detail
Item Type Description Quantity SKU
CX1 Enclosure CXC108 1
System CXC108 Chassis 1 CXC108
Active Noise Cancellation Device Active Noise Cancellation Device 1 CX1ANCD
Power Supplies Single Phase Hot Swap Power Module 4 CX1SPHSPM
Gigabit Ethernet Kit Gigabit Ethernet Switch 16 Ports 1 CX1GESW16
Warranty CXC108 - 3 Years Onsite NBD - 24 x 7 Tel Support (World Zone 1) 1 
CXC1083YNBD24X7WW1
CX1 Nodes CN5400 4
CN5400 Compute Node CN5400 (Dual Processor) 1 (4) CN5400
Processor Xeon Quad-Core E5472 3.0GHz 12M 1600 MHz 2 (8) H5472
Memory 8GB FBDIMM DDR2 800MHz ECC/Reg. 8 (32) 8GF8
Hard Drive 320GB 7.2K RPM SATA 3Gbps 2.5" 1 (4) 320725
Warranty CX1 Node - 3 Years Onsite NBD - 24 x 7 Call Center Support (WW1) 1 
(4) CX1N3YNBD24X7WW1
Gigabit Ethernet Kit Gigabit Ethernet Cable 1 (4) CX1GEC
CX1 Nodes CT5401 1
CT5401 GPU Node CT5401 (DP - 1 x GPU) 1 CT5401
Processor Xeon Quad-Core E5462 2.8GHz 12M 1600 MHz 2 H5462
Memory 2GB FBDIMM DDR2 800MHz ECC/Reg. 4 2GF8
Hard Drive 120GB 7.2K RPM SATA 3Gbps 2.5" 1 120S725
GPU NVIDIA TESLA C1060 1 NVTC1060
Gigabit Ethernet Kit Gigabit Ethernet Cable 1 CX1GEC
Warranty CX1 Node - 3 Years Onsite NBD - 24 x 7 Call Center Support (WW1) 1 
CX1N3YNBD24X7WW1
CX1 Nodes CS5404 1
CS5404 Storage Node CS5404 (DP - 4 x HS HDD) 1 CS5404
Processor Xeon Quad-Core E5472 3.0GHz 12M 1600 MHz 2 H5472
Memory 2GB FBDIMM DDR2 800MHz ECC/Reg. 4 2GF8
Internal Fixed Hard Drive 120GB 7.2K RPM SATA 3Gbps 2.5" 1 120S725
Raid Controller RAID controller LSI SAS/SATA 8704EM2 4 ports, 3GB/s 1 
LSI8704EM2
Hot-Swap Hard Drives 120GB 7.2K RPM SATA 3Gbps 2.5" Extended Duty 4 
120S725EX
Warranty CX1 Node - 3 Years Onsite NBD - 24 x 7 Call Center Support (WW1) 1 
CX1N3YNBD24X7WW1
Gigabit Ethernet Kit Gigabit Ethernet Cable 1 CX1GEC
Rack-Mount Rail Kit Rack-Mount Rail Kit 1 CX1RMRK
Power Cord (kit of 2) CX1 Power Cord USA/JP 2.5M 2 CX1PC2
Packaging Standard Packaging 1 CX1BOX
Quantity 1
Total Price (USD) $101,591.00

Now, THATS a config. :-D
A little more than I want...but hell if I won't get it like that should the 
oppertunity arise. :-D

>> I think that computer, close to maxed out, could hold my interest for a 
>> few years at least. As long as it plays DOOM, right? ;-D
>
> Er, yeah. My freakin *laptop* can do that while running Linux UNDER 
> SOFTWARE EMULATION! :-P

:-D
Sorry...old meme... :-p

ian

Post a reply to this message

> "Widescreen LCDs are easier to make."
>
> Um, WTF? Why would *that* be??

I can think of a few reasons, but none significant enough to actually make a 
comment like that.  For the backlight it's better to have a longer edge to 
inject the light, it's more efficient.  For the electrical design having a 
longer edge to make connections is better, plus having a shorter distance 
top to bottom makes the driver circuits simpler (the left/right drivers just 
switch the pixel transistors on/off, the top/bottom drivers actually send 
the data so are much more sensitive to the capicitance and resistance in the 
lines).

> Also... I just touched my desk and got a static shock. (Like I always do, 
> several times per day.) But this time, my LCD monitor went black for a 
> second just as I got the shock. WTF?! o_O

Hehe, we have an ESD gun here for doing exactly that test, hold it on the 
screen or on one of the connectors and fire!  Usually it does what you say 
at the higher voltages, blanks out until it can reset (customers don't like 
seeing garbled random data on the screen while the drivers try to reset).

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:49b7a362@news.povray.org...

> "Widescreen LCDs are easier to make."
>
> Um, WTF? Why would *that* be??

There's a hidden assumption, and I'd change easier to cheaper: Widescreen
LCDs are cheaper to make (for a given diagonal size & ppi, or for a given
diagonal size and horizontal resolution).

Post a reply to this message

> There's a hidden assumption, and I'd change easier to cheaper: Widescreen
> LCDs are cheaper to make (for a given diagonal size & ppi, or for a given
> diagonal size and horizontal resolution).

I can make 100 20" monitors out of my single 24" monitor (ok the aspect 
ratio would be 1000:1 but, hey!) :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Hehe, we have an ESD gun here for doing exactly that test, hold it on 
> the screen or on one of the connectors and fire!  Usually it does what 
> you say at the higher voltages, blanks out until it can reset (customers 
> don't like seeing garbled random data on the screen while the drivers 
> try to reset).

I had a notebook computer that had a loose connection between the 
controller and the LCD. Every once in a while, you'd tilt the screen and 
get a very strange garbled display...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> scott wrote:
> > Hehe, we have an ESD gun here for doing exactly that test, hold it on
> > the screen or on one of the connectors and fire!  Usually it does what
> > you say at the higher voltages, blanks out until it can reset (customers
> > don't like seeing garbled random data on the screen while the drivers
> > try to reset).
>
> I had a notebook computer that had a loose connection between the
> controller and the LCD. Every once in a while, you'd tilt the screen and
> get a very strange garbled display...

I knocked an entire can of beer onto my MacBook a couple of years ago. You
should see the interesting brightness pattern the screen now exhibits... :-\

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:13:48 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>I had a notebook computer that had a loose connection between the 
>controller and the LCD. Every once in a while, you'd tilt the screen and 
>get a very strange garbled display...

Mine is like that ATM. It is still under warranty but I don't want to waste
rendering time sending it back for repair. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> "Widescreen LCDs are easier to make."
>>
>> Um, WTF? Why would *that* be??
> 
> I can think of a few reasons, but none significant enough to actually 
> make a comment like that.  For the backlight it's better to have a 
> longer edge to inject the light, it's more efficient.  For the 
> electrical design having a longer edge to make connections is better, 
> plus having a shorter distance top to bottom makes the driver circuits 
> simpler (the left/right drivers just switch the pixel transistors 
> on/off, the top/bottom drivers actually send the data so are much more 
> sensitive to the capicitance and resistance in the lines).

19-inch 4:3 aspect LCD monitor: £159.
19-inch 16:9 aspect LCD monitor: £113.

WTF-O-Meter: 4.6

>> Also... I just touched my desk and got a static shock. (Like I always 
>> do, several times per day.) But this time, my LCD monitor went black 
>> for a second just as I got the shock. WTF?! o_O
> 
> Hehe, we have an ESD gun here for doing exactly that test, hold it on 
> the screen or on one of the connectors and fire!  Usually it does what 
> you say at the higher voltages, blanks out until it can reset (customers 
> don't like seeing garbled random data on the screen while the drivers 
> try to reset).

The part I can't figure out is... how is the monitor electrically 
connected to the metal beam on the underside of my desk? (The desk 
itself is wood. And the monitor housing is plastic.) So how the hell did 
the charge get into the LCD??

Post a reply to this message

> Mine is like that ATM.

Hey, *I* am old enough to remember green-screen ATMs. :-P (Complete with 
"insert card" burned into the screen...)

Post a reply to this message

> 19-inch 4:3 aspect LCD monitor: £159.
> 19-inch 16:9 aspect LCD monitor: £113.

Resolution, brightness, contrast, panel technology, etc?

Also, do you think they are just simply making more widescreen monitors now, 
so of course the price will be cheaper?

> The part I can't figure out is... how is the monitor electrically 
> connected to the metal beam on the underside of my desk? (The desk itself 
> is wood. And the monitor housing is plastic.) So how the hell did the 
> charge get into the LCD??

Charge doesn't only go through conductors, one of the tests we do is to 
apply a discharge to the plastic casing of the display and to the front 
surface (which is definitely not a conductor), it makes its way fine to the 
electronics :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> 19-inch 4:3 aspect LCD monitor: £159.
>> 19-inch 16:9 aspect LCD monitor: £113.
> 
> Resolution, brightness, contrast, panel technology, etc?
> 
> Also, do you think they are just simply making more widescreen monitors 
> now, so of course the price will be cheaper?

Given that the lead time for one is 3-4 days and the other is 3-4 
*weeks*... I'm guessing this has far more to do with market forces than 
any technological difference in how "easy" it is to make 'em. ;-)

>> The part I can't figure out is... how is the monitor electrically 
>> connected to the metal beam on the underside of my desk? (The desk 
>> itself is wood. And the monitor housing is plastic.) So how the hell 
>> did the charge get into the LCD??
> 
> Charge doesn't only go through conductors, one of the tests we do is to 
> apply a discharge to the plastic casing of the display and to the front 
> surface (which is definitely not a conductor), it makes its way fine to 
> the electronics :-)

o_O

I guess if you apply a few thousand volts to something, life finds a way...

...wait...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> Mine is like that ATM.
> 
> Hey, *I* am old enough to remember green-screen ATMs. :-P (Complete with 
> "insert card" burned into the screen...)

Oh, please .. I'm old enough to remember when credit cards had no 
magnetic stripe, and credit transactions required carbon paper. :-P

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:09:58 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Invisible wrote:
>>> Mine is like that ATM.
>> 
>> Hey, *I* am old enough to remember green-screen ATMs. :-P (Complete with 
>> "insert card" burned into the screen...)
>
>Oh, please .. I'm old enough to remember when credit cards had no 
>magnetic stripe, and credit transactions required carbon paper. :-P

I'm old enough to remember... Damn! I forgot.  ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:49b7cfed$1@news.povray.org...

> 19-inch 4:3 aspect LCD monitor: £159.
> 19-inch 16:9 aspect LCD monitor: £113.
>
> WTF-O-Meter: 4.6

Makes perfect sense (ceteris peribus). I'm surprised you cannot figure out
why .

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> The only way I'm getting that one though is if funding for this biofuels 
> startup comes through.

I'm involved with prizecapital.net if you are interested in that. Sort of 
like X-Prize for biofuel start-ups.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Oh, please .. I'm old enough to remember when credit cards had no 
> magnetic stripe, and credit transactions required carbon paper. :-P

And I'm old enough to have actually collected money that way. :-)

Along with the big book they sent you once a month with all the stolen card 
numbers.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 19-inch 4:3 aspect LCD monitor: £159.
> 19-inch 16:9 aspect LCD monitor: £113.
> 
> WTF-O-Meter: 4.6

Isn't a 19-inch 16:9 smaller than a 19" 4:3?  They're measured on the 
diagonal, yes? So the smallest 19" monitor would be a 19:1 monitor?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

>> 19-inch 4:3 aspect LCD monitor: £159.
>> 19-inch 16:9 aspect LCD monitor: £113.
>>
>> WTF-O-Meter: 4.6
> 
> Isn't a 19-inch 16:9 smaller than a 19" 4:3?  They're measured on the 
> diagonal, yes? So the smallest 19" monitor would be a 19:1 monitor?

Well let's see now...

4:3 would be 15.2 x 11.4 inches = 173.28 in^2.
16:9 would be 16.55 x 9.31 inches = 154.08 in^2.

Given the miniscule difference, I don't think that has much to do with 
it. (I am, however, baffled as to why there's an area difference at all...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Oh, please .. I'm old enough to remember when credit cards had no 
>> magnetic stripe, and credit transactions required carbon paper. :-P
> 
> And I'm old enough to have actually collected money that way. :-)
> 
> Along with the big book they sent you once a month with all the stolen 
> card numbers.
> 

Touché

Wow, So.... how likely was it that someone would be caught with a stolen 
card then? Oh, and no electronic means to check credit limits...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>>> Oh, please .. I'm old enough to remember when credit cards had no 
>>> magnetic stripe, and credit transactions required carbon paper. :-P
>>
>> And I'm old enough to have actually collected money that way. :-)
>>
>> Along with the big book they sent you once a month with all the stolen 
>> card numbers.
>>
> 
> Touché
> 
> Wow, So.... how likely was it that someone would be caught with a stolen 
> card then? Oh, and no electronic means to check credit limits...

Interesting.

I had always assumed that credit cards exist *because* of electronic 
banking. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> I had always assumed that credit cards exist *because* of electronic 
> banking. :-P

I remember getting utility bills on tractor feed paper, presumably 
printed by some huge line printer...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>> I had always assumed that credit cards exist *because* of electronic 
>> banking. :-P
> 
> I remember getting utility bills on tractor feed paper, presumably 
> printed by some huge line printer...

I remember being in the office where they *printed* that stuff.

In 1996.

What can I say? County councils aren't the most technologically forward 
organisations.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I had always assumed that credit cards exist *because* of electronic 
> banking. :-P

Bank cards exist because of electronic banking.

Before electronic authorization, it was mostly things like cards for 
particular gas stations or particular stores. You didn't have "mastercard" 
or "visa" or (the original) "diner's club." You had "Exxon" cards or 
"Texaco" cards.

It was hard to go over your credit limit when gas was $0.30/gallon and 
that's all you could buy on the card. :-)

I never caught a bad card, and I think it only happened once or twice the 
whole time my Dad owned the gas station. Or, to put it another way, we got 
robbed more often than we saw bad credit cards.  I think you just either 
took the card away or refused to accept it, I don't know which. Most of the 
customers using cards were regulars anyway.

There were a bunch of other security features too. Like you couldn't swipe 
the same card twice, because the blanks were numbered and the gas company 
would turn it down, figuring you put two blanks into the machine and had the 
guy sign it. So when someone showed up with a fleet of trucks to get filled 
up, we had to change the date on the machine up and down so we didn't get 
turned down.

The best was when I handed the paper to the guy to sign, and he writes VOID 
across it. I'm like "Excuse me?"  He says "Look at the card."  Issued to 
Henry Void.  "Oh, very good Mr Void. Have a nice day."  I imagine he has a 
worse time than "Mr New" does with that sort of stuff.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:48:40 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> I had always assumed that credit cards exist *because* of electronic 
>> banking. :-P
>
>I remember getting utility bills on tractor feed paper, presumably 
>printed by some huge line printer...

When I opened my first cheque book account I had to sign an agreement that had a
physical stamp on it. Signifying that stamp duty had been paid and the document
was legal. I should have had my own "Boston Tea Party". :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/11/2009 1:37 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Given the miniscule difference, I don't think that has much to do with
> it. (I am, however, baffled as to why there's an area difference at all...)

You're baffled as to why two different rectangles with different side 
lengths but equivalent diagonals have different areas?

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Given the miniscule difference, I don't think that has much to do with
>> it. (I am, however, baffled as to why there's an area difference at 
>> all...)
> 
> You're baffled as to why two different rectangles with different side 
> lengths but equivalent diagonals have different areas?

Yes. I was under the impression that the square of the diagonal was 
equal to the sum of the squares of the sides, which _should_ mean that 
as one side gets shorter, the other side gets longer by exactly the same 
amount, holding the area constant.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Given the miniscule difference, I don't think that has much to do with
> >> it. (I am, however, baffled as to why there's an area difference at 
> >> all...)
> > 
> > You're baffled as to why two different rectangles with different side 
> > lengths but equivalent diagonals have different areas?

> Yes. I was under the impression that the square of the diagonal was 
> equal to the sum of the squares of the sides, which _should_ mean that 
> as one side gets shorter, the other side gets longer by exactly the same 
> amount, holding the area constant.

  That would mean that if one of the sides had zero length, then the other
side would have the same length of the diagonal and the area would still
be the same. Which is obviously impossible.

  You are confusing the sum of the squares of the side lengths with the
product of the side lengths. Obviously they are different things.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>> You're baffled as to why two different rectangles with different side 
>>> lengths but equivalent diagonals have different areas?
> 
>> Yes. I was under the impression that the square of the diagonal was 
>> equal to the sum of the squares of the sides, which _should_ mean that 
>> as one side gets shorter, the other side gets longer by exactly the same 
>> amount, holding the area constant.
> 
>   That would mean that if one of the sides had zero length, then the other
> side would have the same length of the diagonal and the area would still
> be the same. Which is obviously impossible.
> 
>   You are confusing the sum of the squares of the side lengths with the
> product of the side lengths. Obviously they are different things.

Yes. Obviously I am wrong, since the actual results do not match my 
expectations. All I said was that I am surprised. ;-)

Ironically, I'm currently reading

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

I guess I'm too stupid to realise how stupid I am... :-/

Post a reply to this message

Invisible a écrit :
> Ironically, I'm currently reading
> 
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> 
> I guess I'm too stupid to realise how stupid I am... :-/

I'm not sure inflated self-assessment is your main problem right now ;-)

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

>> I guess I'm too stupid to realise how stupid I am... :-/
> 
> I'm not sure inflated self-assessment is your main problem right now ;-)

Well, I don't know either. I have little to compare against. :-\

Post a reply to this message

I'm not personally authorized to make any kind of official 
statement/commitment, but I will talk to the founder today; the board and 
partners may be interested as well.

I will let you know.

ian

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:49b81d05@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> The only way I'm getting that one though is if funding for this biofuels 
>> startup comes through.
>
> I'm involved with prizecapital.net if you are interested in that. Sort of 
> like X-Prize for biofuel start-ups.
>
> -- 
>   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
>   unable to read this, even at arm's length."
>

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
...
>>> The part I can't figure out is... how is the monitor electrically 
>>> connected to the metal beam on the underside of my desk? (The desk 
>>> itself is wood. And the monitor housing is plastic.) So how the hell 
>>> did the charge get into the LCD??
>>
>> Charge doesn't only go through conductors, one of the tests we do is 
>> to apply a discharge to the plastic casing of the display and to the 
>> front surface (which is definitely not a conductor), it makes its way 
>> fine to the electronics :-)
> 
> o_O
> 
> I guess if you apply a few thousand volts to something, life finds a way...

"Lec 1 | MIT 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3omwHv3Cmog&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=1

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com

Post a reply to this message