 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:4a1ee0ca$1@news.povray.org...
> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
>
> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
That's nothing. What's scary is this:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/21/aussie-whiz-kids-can-cram-1-6tb-on-a-dvd-
sized-disc-go-outback/
And I was hoping that the supremely stupid physical form of the CD would
make an exit at some point in my lifetime.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:33:17 -0600, somebody wrote:
> the supremely stupid physical form of the CD
What's wrong with the physical form?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> That's nothing. What's scary is this:
That was scary too, but I lost the link to it by the time I decided to post
a "this is scary" post here. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
>
> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
Why is that scary? Almost none of the work is done by the main program
anymore; everything from model loading to rendering can be offloaded to
a separate binary library and the graphics driver itself.
All they need are methods for setting the camera, the GL state, loading
models, and rendering said models. They don't even have to add
primitive support if they don't want to. Advanced effects can be had by
loading GLSL files as well.
Basically, all of that abstraction is finally paying off.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
>>
>> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
>
> Why is that scary?
For the same reason that building a complex UI by manipulating a DOM is scary?
"Scary" means "I can't believe we've come to the point where this is
actually a useful idea." :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
>
> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
Seems to require a plugin. More like Google's answer to Flash and Silverlight.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > Darren New wrote:
> >> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
> >>
> >> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
> >
> > Why is that scary?
>
> For the same reason that building a complex UI by manipulating a DOM is scary?
>
> "Scary" means "I can't believe we've come to the point where this is
> actually a useful idea." :-)
everyone just loves doing lowlevel assembly programming...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:33:17 -0600, somebody wrote:
> > the supremely stupid physical form of the CD
> What's wrong with the physical form?
Naked optical media was a braindead idea from the start.
Classic music CDs work mostly. The data density is relatively low (by
modern standards at least) and they have so much error correction information
that the CD has to be *really* scratched before it starts giving errors
(although I'm pretty sure most people have their own stories about non-working
music CDs). Nevertheless, it's still a bad idea: The optical data is just
there, naked, without any protection, and can easily be destroyed inadvertedly
by scratches, dirt and whatnot. Just accidentally drop the CD and you might
have a scratch.
Then they came up with the brilliant idea that hey, we need a new format
with a lot more capacity than the CD, so let's create the new format to
have the exact same shape and size as a CD so that players can support both.
Good idea, except that you get all the problems of a naked optical media
squared. Cubed. Due to the immensely higher data density, DVDs are like a
hundred times more prone to get problems due to stains and scratches. Once
again: Barenaked optical media, no protection whatsoever, extremely easy
to detroy inadvertedly by accident.
Now we are doomed to have all future optical media have the same flaw,
for the simple reason that they want the players to be backwards-compatible
with the older optical media. Backwards-compatibility sounds all nice and
practical, but in this case it's simply repeating past mistakes.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
>
> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
And JavaScript is worse than SDL because...?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> music CDs). Nevertheless, it's still a bad idea: The optical data is just
> there, naked, without any protection,
Sure, it's got protection. The actual data in written below the surface
of the disc, which is why scratches can be repaired on discs and you
won't lose any data.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Naked optical media was a braindead idea from the start.
>
> Classic music CDs work mostly. The data density is relatively low (by
> modern standards at least) and they have so much error correction information
> that the CD has to be *really* scratched before it starts giving errors
> (although I'm pretty sure most people have their own stories about non-working
> music CDs). Nevertheless, it's still a bad idea: The optical data is just
> there, naked, without any protection, and can easily be destroyed inadvertedly
> by scratches, dirt and whatnot. Just accidentally drop the CD and you might
> have a scratch.
>
> Then they came up with the brilliant idea that hey, we need a new format
> with a lot more capacity than the CD, so let's create the new format to
> have the exact same shape and size as a CD so that players can support both.
> Good idea, except that you get all the problems of a naked optical media
> squared. Cubed. Due to the immensely higher data density, DVDs are like a
> hundred times more prone to get problems due to stains and scratches. Once
> again: Bare naked optical media, no protection whatsoever, extremely easy
> to detroy inadvertedly by accident.
Well, considering all this, I have a vast collection of CDs and my dad
has a comparable collection of DVDs, and they all work absolutely
flawlessly.
Doesn't seem like much of a problem to me. :-P
(What I *have* seen is old CD-Rs that stop working after a while. This
presumably is something to do with the ink...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > music CDs). Nevertheless, it's still a bad idea: The optical data is just
> > there, naked, without any protection,
>
> Sure, it's got protection. The actual data in written below the surface
> of the disc, which is why scratches can be repaired on discs and you
> won't lose any data.
Not to mention the box... :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sure, it's got protection. The actual data in written below the surface
> of the disc, which is why scratches can be repaired on discs and you
> won't lose any data.
The exception being CD-R, where scratching the label side of the disk
really can scratch off the data...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-5-2009 10:22, Invisible wrote:
> Well, considering all this, I have a vast collection of CDs and my dad
> has a comparable collection of DVDs, and they all work absolutely
> flawlessly.
Try a child of your own or a grandchild.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Classic music CDs work mostly.
I read this and thought "What, rock and roll is easier to scratch??"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
>>
>> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
>
> Seems to require a plugin. More like Google's answer to Flash and Silverlight.
The way the article was written implied to me that it was HTML5 elements
with a google javascript library driving them (like "Yahoo widgets" or
jQuery are on top of standard features). I thought the plug-in was just
because HTML5 hasn't actually been implemented yet.
Certainly the canvas element is pretty scary. But I guess less scary than
continuing to pretend that HTML is for hypertext mark-up rather than
pixel-perfect interactive application construction. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 03:45:58 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Classic music CDs work mostly. The data density is relatively low (by
> modern standards at least) and they have so much error correction
> information that the CD has to be *really* scratched before it starts
> giving errors (although I'm pretty sure most people have their own
> stories about non-working music CDs). Nevertheless, it's still a bad
> idea: The optical data is just there, naked, without any protection, and
> can easily be destroyed inadvertedly by scratches, dirt and whatnot.
> Just accidentally drop the CD and you might have a scratch.
Then it's worth being careful with the things you purchase.
Seriously, that's like saying "buy the extended warranty when you buy a
phone/pda/whatever because you wouldn't want it to get damaged" - last
time I was offered that, I told the seller that unlike most people, I
treat my purchases with care and make sure they're not going to get
dropped.
I have CDs and DVDs that I purchased years ago that I have no problems
with.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 09:43:07 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>> Sure, it's got protection. The actual data in written below the
>> surface of the disc, which is why scratches can be repaired on discs
>> and you won't lose any data.
>
> The exception being CD-R, where scratching the label side of the disk
> really can scratch off the data...
Now that actually is true for pressed CDs as well, AFAIK.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The exception being CD-R, where scratching the label side of the disk
>> really can scratch off the data...
>
> Now that actually is true for pressed CDs as well, AFAIK.
I don't believe it is, but I'll go test the theory later. (I've got a
few pressed CDs I wouldn't miss...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, considering all this, I have a vast collection of CDs and my dad
>> has a comparable collection of DVDs, and they all work absolutely
>> flawlessly.
>
> Try a child of your own or a grandchild.
...?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Well, considering all this, I have a vast collection of CDs and my dad
>>> has a comparable collection of DVDs, and they all work absolutely
>>> flawlessly.
>>
>> Try a child of your own or a grandchild.
>
> ...?
Children scratch CDs?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Then it's worth being careful with the things you purchase.
Compare to the good old 3.5-inch floppies. You could throw them accross
the room and hit a wall and play football with them, and they would still
work just fine.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Well, considering all this, I have a vast collection of CDs and my dad
>>>> has a comparable collection of DVDs, and they all work absolutely
>>>> flawlessly.
>>> Try a child of your own or a grandchild.
>> ...?
>
> Children scratch CDs?
Oh, right.
Well, if you have children around, you just have to accept that anything
remotely valuable *will* be destroyed, and there is nothing you can do
about it. I've seen plenty of VHS tapes destroyed by children - and
they're are armour-plated!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Then it's worth being careful with the things you purchase.
>
> Compare to the good old 3.5-inch floppies. You could throw them accross
> the room and hit a wall and play football with them, and they would still
> work just fine.
Interestingly, all the floppies I own have gradually stopped working.
Almost every single one of them now regularly has bad sectors or
suddenly shows up as "not formatted". I guess because they're so old now...
And yet, I have CDs purchased in the time before you could purchase 3.5
disks in shops. And they're still in mint condition. (But then, they're
optical, not magnetic, so...)
As I said note... What the **** do they make the actual disk out of?
Because man, it's unbreakable! They should make shopping bags out of
that stuff!!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-5-2009 21:18, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Well, considering all this, I have a vast collection of CDs and my dad
>>>> has a comparable collection of DVDs, and they all work absolutely
>>>> flawlessly.
>>> Try a child of your own or a grandchild.
>> ...?
>
> Children scratch CDs?
Yip, scratch them, sit on them, smear stuff on it (that you sometimes
can remove easily and sometimes not).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Interestingly, all the floppies I own have gradually stopped working.
> Almost every single one of them now regularly has bad sectors or
> suddenly shows up as "not formatted". I guess because they're so old now...
I think that's because they are a magnetic storage media, which
degrades over time. Optical media has the advantage that it doesn't
degrade. If it only was as protected as the 3.5-inch floppies, they
would be almost perfect...
> As I said note... What the **** do they make the actual disk out of?
> Because man, it's unbreakable! They should make shopping bags out of
> that stuff!!
They aren't unbreakable. At least DVD-R's aren't. Bend them enough and
they will shatter into a hundred tiny (razor-sharp) pieces.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Children scratch CDs?
>
> Yip, scratch them, sit on them, smear stuff on it (that you sometimes
> can remove easily and sometimes not).
Eat them?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Interestingly, all the floppies I own have gradually stopped working.
>> Almost every single one of them now regularly has bad sectors or
>> suddenly shows up as "not formatted". I guess because they're so old now...
>
> I think that's because they are a magnetic storage media, which
> degrades over time. Optical media has the advantage that it doesn't
> degrade. If it only was as protected as the 3.5-inch floppies, they
> would be almost perfect...
I've seen drives that accept CDs in a "caddy". Never very popular though.
>> As I said note... What the **** do they make the actual disk out of?
>> Because man, it's unbreakable! They should make shopping bags out of
>> that stuff!!
>
> They aren't unbreakable. At least DVD-R's aren't. Bend them enough and
> they will shatter into a hundred tiny (razor-sharp) pieces.
No no - the floppy plastic bit inside a floppy disk. Seriously, I don't
know what kind of plastic it is, but... well *you* try ripping one!! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-5-2009 23:34, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Children scratch CDs?
>>
>> Yip, scratch them, sit on them, smear stuff on it (that you sometimes
>> can remove easily and sometimes not).
>
> Eat them?
>
That I never saw.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 15:36:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Then it's worth being careful with the things you purchase.
>
> Compare to the good old 3.5-inch floppies. You could throw them
> accross
> the room and hit a wall and play football with them, and they would
> still work just fine.
Sure, and I could also compare them to 8 Track Tapes or other forms of
media.
Compared to chipping bits out of stone, 3.5" floppies are fragile.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 21:49:11 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> What the **** do they make the actual disk out of? Because man, it's
> unbreakable!
They're not hard to snap in half, have done that on occasion with media
where the dye has given up.
Interestingly, though, if you put them through a shredder (I have one
that handles CD/DVD media), often times the plastic doesn't come apart
and you end up with interesting designs.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:11:38 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Optical media has the advantage that it doesn't degrade.
Wrong, it does. Over time the dyes (especially in cheaper optical media)
will fade and you'll start getting read errors.
I do have some optical media that that has happened to.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 22:35:34 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I've seen drives that accept CDs in a "caddy". Never very popular
> though.
I actually have two CD-ROM drives like this. Both of them are in the
pile of electronics that are going to the recyclers.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Compared to chipping bits out of stone, 3.5" floppies are fragile.
But the new stuff referenced at the engaget link above is said to be more
durable than stone, which is also pretty cool.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 15:06:10 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Compared to chipping bits out of stone, 3.5" floppies are fragile.
>
> But the new stuff referenced at the engaget link above is said to be
> more durable than stone, which is also pretty cool.
Yeah, that is pretty cool. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Oh, right.
>
> Well, if you have children around, you just have to accept that anything
> remotely valuable *will* be destroyed, and there is nothing you can do
> about it. I've seen plenty of VHS tapes destroyed by children - and
> they're are armour-plated!
As my mom tells, I used to crawl around the house holding cassette tape with
one of my tiny fingers. While the cassette in question remained inside a
drawer. Thus, tape around the house.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:11:38 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Optical media has the advantage that it doesn't degrade.
>
> Wrong, it does. Over time the dyes (especially in cheaper optical media)
> will fade and you'll start getting read errors.
>
> I do have some optical media that that has happened to.
And pressed CDs are MORE prone to degradation than CD-Rs. Hence, making
backups of bought software/music is indeed a good idea (DRM permitting).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 19:19:43 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:11:38 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> Optical media has the advantage that it doesn't degrade.
>>
>> Wrong, it does. Over time the dyes (especially in cheaper optical
>> media) will fade and you'll start getting read errors.
>>
>> I do have some optical media that that has happened to.
>
> And pressed CDs are MORE prone to degradation than CD-Rs. Hence, making
> backups of bought software/music is indeed a good idea (DRM permitting).
No disagreement there. First thing I do on the rare occasion I get a
music CD is rip it to MP3. Of course it usually ends up on my iPod
then. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Optical media has the advantage that it doesn't degrade.
>> Wrong, it does. Over time the dyes (especially in cheaper optical media)
>> will fade and you'll start getting read errors.
>>
>> I do have some optical media that that has happened to.
>
> And pressed CDs are MORE prone to degradation than CD-Rs. Hence, making
> backups of bought software/music is indeed a good idea (DRM permitting).
How do you work that one out?
I have numerous CD-Rs which are no longer readable, but I don't possess
one single pressed CD which is unreadable. And I own CDs that were
purchased before CD-R was even *invented*!
Just for completeness, at work we've recently had serious trouble
because some CD-R archives of really old data are now unreadable. But I
have Windows 95 CDs that predate them and still work.
Think about it: CD-Rs work using a light-sensitive dye. It makes sense
that it could fade over time. Pressed CDs use a layer of aluminium
metal. How is that going to fade?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What the **** do they make the actual disk out of? Because man, it's
>> unbreakable!
>
> They're not hard to snap in half, have done that on occasion with media
> where the dye has given up.
As I told Warp, I was talking about floppy disks. (The floppy,
disk-shaped part.)
> Interestingly, though, if you put them through a shredder (I have one
> that handles CD/DVD media), often times the plastic doesn't come apart
> and you end up with interesting designs.
IME, pressed CDs shatter, while CD-Rs are less brittle. Also, pressed
CDs shatter into pieces, but with CD-Rs the reflective label tends to
peel off, leaving you with a shredder full of glitter.
Whatever; the shredder makes a satisfying crunking sound... >:-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Compared to chipping bits out of stone, 3.5" floppies are fragile.
Been round any graveyards recently? Acid rain does horrible things to
stone. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> music CDs). Nevertheless, it's still a bad idea: The optical data is just
>> there, naked, without any protection,
>
> Sure, it's got protection. The actual data in written below the surface
> of the disc, which is why scratches can be repaired on discs and you
> won't lose any data.
>
Yeah. Because the stuff you buy on the cheap fixes these problems "so
well", nearly everyone has a polisher in their closet, and you can
repolish the surface forever....
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 07:13:36 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> What the **** do they make the actual disk out of? Because man, it's
>>> unbreakable!
>>
>> They're not hard to snap in half, have done that on occasion with media
>> where the dye has given up.
>
> As I told Warp, I was talking about floppy disks. (The floppy,
> disk-shaped part.)
Ah, I see - yes, that part is difficult to tear, but it can be punctured
with relative ease.
>> Interestingly, though, if you put them through a shredder (I have one
>> that handles CD/DVD media), often times the plastic doesn't come apart
>> and you end up with interesting designs.
>
> IME, pressed CDs shatter, while CD-Rs are less brittle. Also, pressed
> CDs shatter into pieces, but with CD-Rs the reflective label tends to
> peel off, leaving you with a shredder full of glitter.
Yeah, that's true. And that glitter gets *everywhere* too.
I haven't tried pressed CDs, but I've got some old ones in the basement I
could probably whack in to see what happens. Might be interesting to see
the difference.
> Whatever; the shredder makes a satisfying crunking sound... >:-D
This is very true. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 30 May 2009 07:14:26 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Compared to chipping bits out of stone, 3.5" floppies are fragile.
>
> Been round any graveyards recently? Acid rain does horrible things to
> stone. :-P
I used to live across the street from a graveyard. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Then it's worth being careful with the things you purchase.
>
> Compare to the good old 3.5-inch floppies. You could throw them accross
> the room and hit a wall and play football with them, and they would still
> work just fine.
>
The real irony here is, the "earliest" models of CD technology had a
"case" you inserted them into, with a sort of latched door, just like
the 3.5 inch floppy, so the surface was only "visible", and
"unprotected", while in the machine to read it. Problem is, since they
could be removed from those things (it was too costly to provide one for
each) people lost them, then the reader wouldn't work, since there was
no "tray" to put the disc in, and insert into the reader.
Personally, I think they had the right idea to start with, and went
stupid, due to cost, minor inconvenient, and the human tendency to
misplace "critical" parts. If I had a choice, I would use something like
a slim case, with a door on it, rather than the thing we have now. And,
except for people that buy those lame "sleeves", which just help scratch
up the discs over time, most people buy boxes of those things anyway,
because they stack well, protect the disc, and are not "so much" larger
than the discs themselves that they care any more. It wouldn't be that
hard to rig a "door" on one, or some sort, and clip out a bit of the
center, so it can be mounted on the spin mechanism. Oh, and.. if you get
one of those rare, "It exploded!", situations, it wouldn't throw shards
throughout the entire reader. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Well, if you have children around, you just have to accept that anything
> remotely valuable *will* be destroyed, and there is nothing you can do
> about it. I've seen plenty of VHS tapes destroyed by children - and
> they're are armour-plated!
>
If you have children, you simply have a copy of every freaking optical
media they can and/or should reach to. When they scratch it, it's week
or two without that particular media (the exact amount of time depends,
it has to be missed but not just forgotten) before you burn a new copy
for them. This continues as long as A) they learn to handle the discs
correctly or B) they start buying theier own discs.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> If you have children, you simply have a copy of every freaking optical
> media they can and/or should reach to.
I think that's supporting Warp's point, there. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Try a child of your own or a grandchild.
If they're not old enough to handle it without breaking it, then they're
not old enough to handle it.
We don't let kids drive cars, use guns, or any number of other things
because it's understood that they aren't capable of doing so
responsibly. It's the same with optical disks; if you let them handle
your optical disks, when you *know* they aren't capable of doing so,
then don't complain when they break them.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-5-2009 20:00, Chambers wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Try a child of your own or a grandchild.
>
> If they're not old enough to handle it without breaking it, then they're
> not old enough to handle it.
>
> We don't let kids drive cars, use guns, or any number of other things
> because it's understood that they aren't capable of doing so
> responsibly.
Read the news, kids do drive, fire guns order on ebay and do all sort of
other things that we know they aren't capable of. Somehow they have a
different opinion.
> It's the same with optical disks; if you let them handle
> your optical disks, when you *know* they aren't capable of doing so,
> then don't complain when they break them.
I wasn't complaining. Anyway as a theory it is sort of right. In
practice there is only a limited storage space available above 2m and
even that is not safe if you haven't bolted down your chairs and tables.
Kids tend to surprise you with finding solutions to problems that you
hadn't even though of (both s & p).
Note also that the idea of raising a kid is to try to let them learn
things. Not letting them handle disks until they can will result in them
never being able, so that is not an option. As a matter of fact we all
know grown ups that in your scheme should be forbidden to handle them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
