[bbmf]

The solar panels enable you to recharge your USB compatible devices on the go, either while wearing the jacket or with the panels removed. When attached, the solar panels compliment the jacket’s design. The solar panels charge a small battery - about the size of a deck of cards. The battery powers your device almost immediately after the solar panels are exposed to sunlight. Once the battery is fully charged, the panels can be removed and your portable electronic device can tap into the stored power.

Typical charge times in direct sunlight range from 2-3 hours, but direct sunlight is not required. The battery pack can charge any device compatible with Universal Serial Bus (USB) chargers, including cell phones, PDAs, Game Boys, MP3 players, and other mobile devices. (NOTE: USB cables are not included, but are readily available from numerous sources, including www.ziplinq.com, www.belkin.com, and Radio Shack). Also, check out our latest accessory, the Zipcord Retractable Mobile Phone USB Charger.

The solar panels can be attached to the following SeV jackets:

SCOTTEVEST Tactical 4.0 Jacket
SCOTTEVEST Classic Vest 4.0

===========================================================

Voltaic Solar Bags


The Voltaic solar bags are mobile power generators, designed to charge your devices without tying you to a power outlet, which makes them ideal for traveling.

Just plug a standard car charger into the bag and recharge most small electronic devices including: cell phones, cameras, two way radios, PDA's, and MP3s. Note: it is not designed to charge laptops.

If you don't have a car charger, the bags come with a set of 11 standard adaptors for common cell phones and other devices. We also offer a full range of optional adaptors.

Embedded in the outside of the bags are three lightweight, tough, waterproof solar panels which generate up to 4 watts of power. This means quicker charge times!

Included with each bag is a Li Ion battery pack which stores any surplus power generated, so it is available when you need it - not just when the sun is up. The battery pack can also be charged using an AC travel charger or car charger (both included). This makes the Voltaic bags just as useful on the grid as off.

=================================================================
Battery Pack

The battery pack clips inside the back pocket of the Voltaic solar bags and allows it to function as a mobile power reservoir, not just a solar charger.

Inside the battery pack is a 4,400m Ah at 3.6 volts Li Ion battery.
It includes:

A voltage converter with three settings 3.5, 5 and 7.2 Volts,
A charge indicator, and
A built-in LED torch.

=================================================================

Adapters/Chargers


The Voltaic backpack comes with a set of standard adaptors pictured here. To charge a device you can use a standard car charger, or a USB charger. There are also direct adaptors for popular cell phones, and a set of universal adaptors.

It also includes an AC travel charger and a car charger for charging the battery when solar charging is not practical.

In addition to these standard items, we offer a range of optional adaptors for cell phones, cameras, PDA's etc.

=================================================================

Solar Panels

Integrating the solar panels into the back pocket of the bag is a key (patent pending) innovation of the Voltaic backpack. It means that unlike a typical solar charger:

There is no need to unpack and setup the panels
There is no need to stay in one place, and
All of your devices can stay securely inside the bag.
The panels are built into the back of the bag in a way that allows them to articulate, so the bag itself does not feel stiff or restrictive.

They generate up to 4 watts of power, enough to charge most portable electronics (other than laptops). A typical cell phone will take 4-6 hours to charge in direct sun- see approximate charging times.

The panels are built on a strong but lightweight
aluminum plastic composite, specifically selected to withstand the rigors of outdoor use.


http://radio-transmitter.blogspot.co...aic-solar.html

[bbmf]

SAKU, Japan --Winding past rice paddies and lazily blowing its whistle along bubbly creeks, this two-car train in rural northern Japan is the latest entrant in the battle against global warming.

Following its runaway success with hybrid cars, Japan is bringing the world hybrid trains. Regular passenger runs are set to begin Tuesday on a short mountain route, the first time a diesel-electric hybrid train will be put into commercial service.
"It's part of our efforts to be green," Yasuaki Kikuchi, a spokesman for East Japan Railway Co., said Friday, on board an exclusive trial run for The Associated Press.
Compared to cars, trains are a relatively small contributor to global warming. But the popularity of hybrid cars, such as Toyota Motor Corp.'s best-selling Prius, is helping to boost interest in hybrid trains. Railway companies around the world, including Amtrak in the United States and Germany's Deutsche Bahn AG, are working on or investigating the technology.
Cost remains a major hurdle. The Kiha E200 train, which boosts fuel efficiency by 20 percent and reduces emissions by up to 60 percent, cost nearly $1.7 million, twice as much as a standard train, Kikuchi said.
It has a diesel engine, two electric motors under each car and lithium ion batteries on the roof.
With the word "hybrid" splashed in silver across its side, the otherwise normal-looking train rolls quietly out of Nakagomi station, powered by its four electric motors.
The diesel engine only kicks in with a rumble when needed to climb a hill or if the batteries run low.
The batteries are recharged when the train slows down. After the power is switched off, the motors continue to turn for a while, and that energy - wasted in a non-hybrid train - is used to recharge the batteries.
Besides the usual buttons and dials, the conductor also faces a touch-panel monitor. Arrows show which way energy is flowing, connecting boxes that represent the engine, generator, motor, battery, busily changing direction every few minutes. Whether cars or trains, hybrids delicately balance the two sources of power, relying on a computer to minimize waste.
The Kiha E200, which seats 46 and can hold 117 people including straphangers, is debuting on a 49-mile route that runs about once an hour through a mountain resort area.
East Japan Railway will gather data on fuel consumption, which is expected to vary with different passenger loads, maintenance needs and winter heating, said company engineer Mitsuyoshi Yokota.


http://www.sanluisobispo.com/353/story/104563.html

[bbmf]

I have some thoughts regarding the future of open source and how an organization matures along with the movement it helped to create. As Director of Source Programs at Microsoft I can attest to the value of keeping up with your own growth. We started on a journey, over three years ago, with the release of Windows Installer XML on SourceForge. At the time, the project required the approval of our Group Vice President and a herd of lawyers. The reactions of our colleagues were mixed, although as far as we know, none of our kids were beaten up at school as a result of what we were doing. Today, Microsoft has published 175 projects on CodePlex, we have written a pair of open licenses that are under a page in length and over the 500-project mark in adoption as others in the community have decided to use them. I also run a training class that teaches people around the company how to engage in open source projects and make them successful. The volume of projects over the past year has forced us to develop processes for approving and publishing projects that are easy to understand and administer.
As Microsoft’s engagement with open source grows, we have to move from being trailblazers to being road-builders. When you’re blazing a trail, organization, bureaucracy, and majority rule are a burden. In the beginning, a passionate group of people with strongly held beliefs and the will to persevere in the face of doubts and doubters is what it’s all about. When the trail is blazed and you’re keeping a four-lane road open, the challenges are very different. Traffic laws, driver’s licenses, public works, and law enforcement are all necessary and these things require the broad support of the people who use the road and live on the adjacent property. There’s nothing quite as effective in gaining this support as giving people a voice in how things are run. As we look forward to the next three years, we already see the needs of our constituents driving our priorities for licensing, infrastructure, and process. Although open source at Microsoft and the OSI are two different animals, I would submit to you that both are at a point in their maturity where their constituencies need to become more involved to maintain growth.
While it’s important to focus on the needs of a growing community membership, it’s also important to remember why you started it in the first place. In Microsoft’s case, the reason is simple: Customers. IT professionals told us they wanted both platform choices and platform interoperability. Developers told us that they wanted more open collaboration and that the language of that collaboration is code. In response, Microsoft has reached interoperability agreements with several key vendors of open source software, CodePlex is now supporting 2,000 collaborative development projects, and the features of CodePlex itself are largely driven by the votes of the community.
Today, we reached another milestone with the decision to submit our open licenses to the OSI approval process, which, if the licenses are approved, should give the community additional confidence that the code we’re sharing is truly Open Source. I believe that the same voices that have been calling for Microsoft products to better interoperate with open source products would voice their approval should the Open Source Initiative itself open up to more of the IT industry.
So what about the flip side of the OSI becoming a membership organization? Could they really be voted out of existence or rendered ineffective? It doesn’t seem likely to me. Participation in the OSI and adherence to OSI licensing guidelines and Open Source definitions is entirely voluntary. If it isn’t serving the best interests of the community, the community will go elsewhere. Anyone considering an effort to “vote the organization into the ground” would surely realize that such heavy handedness would be self-defeating. That’s not to say that a new membership structure wouldn’t lead to change, but I believe that these changes would have to be the result of vigorous consensus building and that’s probably not a bad thing.


http://port25.technet.com/archive/20...?ViewType=Flat

[bbmf]

Congratulations to members of the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Redshift Supernova Team, who have just been awarded the Gruber Prize in Cosmology for discovering the acceleration of the universe. This wasn’t their first prize, and it won’t be their last. Our universe is big, it’s getting bigger, and it’s getting bigger faster — Edwin Hubble discovered the first two of these facts, and these two teams discovered the third. Not too shabby. For some inside scoop you should refer to the blogging member of the SCP, Rob Knop, who is also celebrating a new job. A distinguished astronomer forwarded to me the following sites, ready and available for follow-up reading:

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...rize-2007.html
http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/ho...07/gruber.html
http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=23706
http://carnegieinstitution.org/news_...2007_0717.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...7_gruber.shtml
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/2007/pr200717.html
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...arkenergy.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-12332,00.html


http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/07/18/summer-vacation/

[bbmf]

Where's The Physics:

The State of Hardware Accelerated Physics
If you believe the more tabloid-oriented hardware news sites, 16 months ago you would have thought that ATI and NVIDIA were at an all out war. Harsh phrases were flung, benchmarks were beat to death, and both sides plotted for motherboards with a third x16 PCIe slot in order to have a GPU dedicated to physics. Yes, 2006 was sure an exciting time for GPU-accelerated physics, and then the party came to a grinding halt.
Over in the Ageia camp, 2005 saw them kick off the whole subject of hardware accelerated physics with their announcement of plans to develop the PhysX hardware. 2006 saw the launch of that hardware, and while it had initial promise there was a failure to follow through with games that meaningfully used the hardware. Much like with the GPU camp, Ageia has been keeping a low profile so far this year.
To be fair, much of this is aligned with the traditional gaming seasons; titles are often loaded in to the 4th quarter for the Christmas season, leaving few games - and by extension few new uses of physics - to talk about. But it's also indicative of a general dampening of spirit for hardware accelerated physics, things have not gone as planned for anyone. Now in 2007, some 2 years after Ageia's announcement got the ball rolling, the number of released AAA titles using some sort of hardware physics acceleration can still be counted on one hand.
So what happened to the enthusiasm? It's not a simple answer as there's no single reason, but rather a combination of reasons that have done a very good job dampening things. Today we'll take a look at these reasons, the business behind all of this, and why as the days tick by hardware accelerated physics keeps looking like a pipe dream.
GPU Physics
When ATI and NVIDIA launched their first physics initiatives in 2006, they rallied behind Havok, the physics middleware provider whose software has powered a great number of PC games this decade. Havok in turn produced Havok FX, a separate licensable middleware package that used Shader Model 3.0 for calculating physics on supported GPUs. Havok FX was released in Q2 of 2006, and if you haven't heard about it you're not alone.
So far not a single game has shipped that uses Havok FX; plenty of games have shipped using the normal Havok middleware which is entirely CPU-powered, but none with Havok FX. The only title we know of that has been announced with Havok FX support is Hellgate: London, which is due this year. However we've noticed there has been next-to-no mention of this since NVIDIA's announcement in 2006, so make of that what you will.
Why any individual developer chooses to use Havok FX or not will be a unique answer, but there are a couple of common threads that we believe explain much of the situation. The first is pure business: Havok FX costs extra to license. We're not privy to the exact fee schedule Havok charges, but it's no secret PC gaming has been on a decline - it's a bad time to be spending more if it can be avoided. Paying for Havok FX isn't going to break the bank for the large development houses, but there are other potentially cheaper options.
The second reason, and that which has the greater effect, is a slew of technical details that stem from using Havok FX. Paramount to this is what the GPU camp is calling physics is not what the rest of us would call physics with a straight face. As Havok FX was designed, the physics simulations run on the GPU are not retrievable in a practical manner, as such Havok FX is designed to be used to generate "second-order" physics. Such physics are not related to gameplay and are inserted as eye-candy. A good example of this is Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, which we'll ignore was a PhysX powered title for the moment and focus on the fact that it used the PhysX hardware primarily for extra debris.
The problem with this of course is obvious, and Havok goes through a great deal of trouble in their Havok FX literature to make this clear. The extra eye-candy is nice and it's certainly an interesting solution to bypassing the problem of lots-of-little-things loading down the CPU (although Direct3D 10 has reduced the performance hit of this), but it also means that the GPU can't have any meaningful impact on gameplay. It doesn't make Havok FX entirely useless since eye-candy does serve its purpose, but it's not what most people (ourselves included) envision when we think hardware accelerated physics; we're looking for the next step in interactive physics, not more eye-candy.
There's also a secondary issue that sees little discussion, largely because it's not immediately quantifiable, and that's performance. Because Havok FX is doing its work on the GPU, shader resources being used for rendering may be getting reallocated to physics calculations, while the remainder of the resources are left to pick up the rest of the work on top of the additional work generated by Havok FX as a result of creating more eye-candy. When the majority of new titles are GPU limited, it's not hard to imagine this scenario.
Thankfully for the GPU camp, Havok isn't the only way to get some level of physics, Shader Model 4.0 introduces some new options. Besides implementing Havok FX in the form of custom code, with proper preparation the geometry shader can be used to do second-order physics like Havok. For example the Call of Juarez technology demonstration uses this technique for its water effects. That said using the geometry shader brings on the same limitations as Havok FX in not being able to retrieve the data for first-order physics.
The second, and by far more interesting use of new GPU technology is exploiting the use of GPGPU techniques to do physics calculations for games. ATI and NVIDIA provide the CTM and CUDA interfaces respectively to allow developers to write high-level code for GPUs to do computing work, and although the primary use of GPGPU technology is for the secondary market of high-performance research computing, it's possible to use this same technology with games. NVIDIA is marketing this under the Quantum Effects initiative, separating it from their early Havok-powered SLI Physics initiative.
Unfortunately the tools for all of these technologies are virtually brand new, games using GPGPU techniques are going to take some time to arrive. This would roughly be in line with the arrival of games that make serious use of DirectX10, which includes the lag period where games will need to support older hardware and hence can't take full advantage of GPGPU techniques. The biggest question here is if any developers using GPGPU techniques will end up using the GPU for first-order physics or solely second-order.
It's due to all of the above that the GPU camp has been so quiet about physics as of late. Given that the only currently commercial-ready GPU accelerated physics technology is limited to second-order physics and only one game is due to be released using said technology this year, there's simply not much to be excited about at the moment. If serious GPU accelerated physics are to arrive, it's going to be another video card upgrade away at the least.
PhysX
2006 and 2007 have been rough for Ageia and their PhysX hardware. While they can rightfully claim to be the only solution for complete hardware accelerated physics at this time, getting a base of hardware owners and a base of developers isn't coming easily. As of right now the only two major titles that have shipped with PhysX support are Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter(GRAW) and its sequel GRAW2.
Much of this we believe can be attributed to business reasons. Although Ageia offers a unified physics API that can handle physics done either in software or hardware, getting a developer to fully support the PhysX hardware means getting them to fully use said API. The Havok physics API in turn has been stiff competition in the physics middleware market, and it's fair to say that a number of games that have come out and will be coming out are using Havok and not PhysX. The situation is so bad that Ageia can't even give away the PhysX SDK - it's free and developers still aren't using it. With Havok eating up the business for software physics engines (not including those developers who use their own engines), it leaves Ageia in a poor spot.
Ageia's second business issue is that they still are suffering from a chicken & egg effect with developers and users. Without a large install base of PhysX cards, developers are less likely to try to support the PhysX hardware, and without developers to publish games using the hardware few people are interested in buying potentially useless hardware. Unfortunately for Ageia this is a time-sensitive issue that is only getting worse as the days pass by, the marginalization PhysX due to this effect is undoubtedly pushing developers towards other physics solutions, which ultimately breaks the chicken & egg scenario but not in Ageia's favor.
Because Ageia is not directly producing PhysX cards, the actions of their partners can also have a significant effect on the success of PhysX. We believe that Ageia has lost the support of powerhouse Asus, as the supply of Asus's PhysX cards has completely dried up, leaving smaller BFG to supply the North American market. Coencidentally, ELSA (who only sells products on the overseas markets) has become Ageia's third partner and is now producing PhysX cards.
At this point Ageia does have one ace left up its sleeve, and that's Unreal Engine 3. Epic is using the PhysX API at the core of the physics system, giving Ageia an automatic window of opportunity to get PhysX hardware support in to every one of the numerous games slated to be using UE3. Even if everyone else were to abandon the PhysX API, conceivably there are enough games using UE3 to sustain Ageia and PhysX.
The most important of these games will be Unreal Tournament 3, which is due for release this year. So far the only major pieces of software that Ageia has had to show off PhysX has been the GRAW series which underutilizes the PhysX hardware, the partially aborted CellFactor technology demo, and the single-level GRAW2 technology demo; UT3 will be the first major game that may be able to take full use of the hardware as Ageia has done in its technology demos. We believe that UT3 will be the final push for PhysX hardware acceptance, either the hardware will die at this point or UT3 will push the issue from developer acceptance to consumer acceptance. In turn, any victory for Ageia will be reliant on Epic making full use of the PhysX hardware and not using it solely for eye-candy; using it for the latter will mean certain death while the former will hinge on the use of PhysX hardware not slowing the game down like we saw in GRAW.
At the very least, unlike with the GPU camp we should have a clear idea by the start of 2008 if the PhysX hardware is going to take off or not. We expect Ageia will be hanging on for dear life until then.
Final Thoughts
More than each other however, there's one other thing that threatens the camps offering hardware physics acceleration: the CPU. Recent years have seen CPUs going multi-core, first with two cores and this week has seen the introduction of the (practically) cheap four core Q6600 from Intel. Being embarrassingly parallel in nature, physics simulations aren't just a good match for GPUs/PPUs with their sub-processors, but a logical fit for multi-core CPUs.
While both AMD and Intel have stated that they intend to avoid getting in to a core war as a replacement for the MHZ race, all signs point to a core war taking place for the foreseeable future, with Intel going so far as to experiment on 80-core designs. With the monolithic nature of games these cores will all be put to work in one way or another, and what better way than physics simulations which can be split nicely among cores? While not the floating point power houses that dedicated processors are, with multiple cores CPUs can realistically keep the gap closed well enough to prevent dedicated processors from being viable for consumers. In some ways Havok is already betting on this with their software physics middleware already designed to scale well with additional CPU cores.
Furthermore the CPU manufactures (Intel in particular) have a hefty lead in bringing manufacturing processes to market and can exploit this to further keep the gap closed versus GPUs(80nm at the high end) and the PhysX PPU(130nm). All of this leads to multi-core CPUs being an effective and low-risk way of going about physics instead of a riskier dedicated physics processor. For flagship titles developers may go the extra mile on physics, on most other titles we wouldn't expect such an effort.
So what does all this mean for hardware physics acceleration overall? In spite of the original battle being between the PPU and the GPU, we're wondering just how much longer Ageia's PhysX software/hardware package can hold out before losing the war of attrition, at the risk of becoming marginalized before any decent software library even comes out. Barring a near-miracle, we're ready to write off the PPU as a piece of impressive hardware that provided a technological solution to a problem few people ended up concerned about.
The battle that's shaping up looks to be between the GPU and the CPU, with both sides having the pockets and the manufacturing technology to play for keeps. The CPU is the safe bet for a developer, so it's largely up to NVIDIA to push the GPU as a viable physics solution (AMD has so far not taken a proactive approach with GPU physics outside of Havok FX). We know that the GPU can be a viable solution for second-order physics, but what we're really interested in is first-order physics. So far this remains unproven as far as gaming is concerned, as current GPGPU projects working with physics are all doing so as high performance computing applications that don't use simultaneous graphics rendering.
Without an idea of how well a GPU will perform with simultaneous tasks, it's too early to call to call the victor. At the very least, developers won't wait forever and the GPU camp will need to prove that their respective GPGPU interfaces can provide enough processing power to justify the cost of developing separate physics systems for each GPU line. However given the trend to move things back on to the CPU through projects such as AMD's forthcoming Fusion technology, there's an awful lot in favor of status quo.




http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3048

[bbmf]

FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

How can I uninstall 3wPlayer?
3wPlayer can be uninstalled like any other software on your computer. In Windows XP, click on "StartControl Panel" and select "Add/Remove Programs". In the list that will be displayed, select "3wPlayer", click on "Remove" and follow the instructions. 3wPlayer will be completely uninstalled quickly from your system.
Does 3wPlayer contain virus/spyware/trojans?
No!
3wPlayer is financed by advertising and will display 4-5 pop up ads on your computer every day while using the software. We do not collect any personal information from our users. The advertising can easily be stopped by uninstalling 3wPlayer and the sponsor software. If you only uninstall the sponsor software you can continue to use 3wPlayer without any ads.
How can I uninstall the sponsor program?
To uninstall the sponsor, simply go in the "Add/Remove Programs" window, select "Cidhelp" and follow the instructions.
If the sponsor was installed but damaged by a third party program, the uninstaller will inform you of the problem. In that case, the easiest procedure is generally to disable your anti-adware/spyware, reinstall 3wPlayer with its sponsor and launch the uninstaller again, this will ensure that nothing interferes with the proper uninstallation of the program. When launched, the sponsor´s uninstaller will simply ask you to confirm the number displayed on screen and will then proceed with the uninstallation. You can then re-enable your anti-adware/spyware product and contact them about the problem you experienced because of their improper removal of Cidhelp files.
Will you support Mac?
There is no plans of Mac-support at this moment, but possibly in the end of the summer.
Do you support Full Screen?
Yes, press F on your keyboard to view media in full screen mode and F to return to normal mode.
I only hear sound, but I can't see any picture!
The movie you are trying to view does likely require a codec. The most common codecs today are Xvid and DivX. Installing these should remove the problem.
Why doesn't my subtitles work?
We support subtitles. First of all make sure you have a software installed that will display subtitled, e.g. VobSub.
Then make sure that the subtitle has exactly the same name as the media file that you want to watch. They should also both be in the same directory.

***

so...
what exactly is it good for
besides bringing advertising
to your desktop?

http://www.3wplayer.com/index.php?go=faq

[bbmf]

The Intel Performance Power Monitor Gadget for Google Desktop
Intel has released the Google Desktop Sidebar Performance Power Monitor Gadget v1.1 based on feedback from users who have downloaded and used previous version of Gadget software
Download the Gadget Software

Download & Install Intel Performance Power Monitor Gadget v1.1 here

Introduction
A loose analogy of Newton's third law of motion can sum up the relationship between mobility and performance. When an object is in acted on by one force an equal and opposite force is applied to the object. Although not directly related to each other mobility has a significant impact on performance, just as performance has on mobility. One of the key features of being mobile is not being tied to an electrical power outlet. The longer a battery provides power to a device the more mobile you are. But being mobile isn't beneficial if you can't do what you want or need to do. Typically the more work done, the more power used. This is the principle behind Intel Speedstep® Technology. This paper describes how Intel Speedstep® Technology saves power and the new feature added to the Intel Performance Power, Google Sidebar Gadget shows how and when power is being saved.
Battery and Performance
The Google Desktop Performance Power Monitor Gadget monitors CPU utilization, battery charge rate, battery drain rate, percent capacity of the battery as well as the time remaining on the battery (when it is plugged in and when it is not).

The Performance Power Monitor Gadget may be configured to sample at a rate of once per second or once every few hours depending on the user's preference. It also keeps a log of the battery charge rate and drain rate. The user has the flexibility to define the number of samples that are recorded in the log as well as an option of manually or automatically refreshing a view of the log.

The Performance Power Monitor logs a record of the charge rate and discharge rate of the battery over time and presents it to the user in the form of an bar graph. The amount of work you can do while on battery depends on how much power the platform is using. The discharge rate will show you just how much power you are using at any one time. On the other side, while the battery is charging, the time it takes to completely charge the battery is not linear. As a battery gets closer to the 100 percent capacity the charge rate slows down. A lot of battery monitors show you the time remaining for the battery to be completely charged. But the Performance Power Monitor will show you the estimated time remaining on a good battery if you were to unplug the laptop and start running on battery power.

So why is this is interesting?
Understanding how an application behaves when running on battery can improve the mobility of a product and allow the user to do more work. An example of how this information can help design a more mobile friendly application is discussed in the paper, Assault on Batteries with the Intent to Perform.
Intel Speedstep® Technology Enhancements to the Gadget
When the CPU doesn't require a lot of performance, such as writing document or browsing the Internet page that contains only HTML the frequency at which the CPU is operating is decreased. However when you are loading the document or browsing the internet with "active" components higher CPU performance is required and the CPU frequency is increased. This is the basic approach that speed step takes. The new Intel Performance Power Gadget shows what frequency the CPU is currently operating at. Why should you care what frequency the CPU is operating? Shouldn't that be "just taken care of" by the hardware and operating system? Typically the answer to that question is yes but let me give you a couple of examples why you should care. Before I give the examples you should understand the ideas behind the power options provided by most operating systems such as Vista and Windows XP. Under the most operating system, power schemes or setting provide options that maximize the battery or maximizes the performance of the machine and several combinations of the two extremes.
Say you are working on a paper in a word processor. Most of the time you spend is in writing the paper and not formatting the document, running spell check or managing the graphics with in the document. Since the majority of the time spent writing a paper is reading writing and revising the document, the CPU is not required to do a significant amount of work. On an Intel Pentium M 1.86 GHz processor writing this paper the CPU utilization dedicated to word processing ranges from 2 to 12 percent depending on when the auto-save function is runs and the back ground spell check kicks in. But on average the CPU utilization dedicated to word processing is about 2 percent. As an example of just how much battery life may or may not be saved between the two extremes, maximizing performance verses maximizing battery two screen captures were taken from the same machine 30 seconds apart. One with the setting designated as maximizing performance and the other designated as maximizing battery. The first figure shows the maximizing of performance.

First notice that the Intel Performance Power Monitor shows an estimated time of 56 minutes of battery time remaining. Second notice the discharge rate of -26 Watts. Now finally notice the CPU is running at a frequency of 1.872 GHz and a utilization of 3.64 %.
Now let's compare it just seconds later after switching to the maximize battery scheme. First notice the estimated time of 1 hour and 9 minutes, up from the estimated 56 minutes only seconds earlier. This results in gain of about 13 minutes. This gain is even more significant if the CPU is higher. Notice that the discharge rate of -26 Watts decreased to -21 Watts. The CPU frequency is now calculated at 794 MHz as opposed to 1.87 GHz in the maximize performance scheme. Notice that when the frequency of the CPU was decreased the CPU utilization doing the same work load was increased some, due to the fact that the frequency of the CPU was decreased.

The reason the new Intel Performance Power Monitor gadget added bar graph of the current frequency to the display is to help people understand what Intel Speedstep® Technology does and how to use better use the operating system schemes to fit the needs of the user.



http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/a...=sw:kmlnews207

[bbmf]

High-definition displays are increasingly popular. More and more people are experiencing high-definition movies and television in breathtaking color and detail. But another technology, called high-dynamic range (HDR), is on the heels of high definition, and some experts think that it could be a quick successor. Whereas high-definition displays pump out more pixels, HDR displays provide more contrast. In other words, on an HDR display, the brightest whites are hundreds of thousands of times brighter than the darkest blacks; the contrast is key to making images on such a display appear more realistic. "A regular image just looks like a depiction of a scene," says Roland Fleming, a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, in Tübingin, Germany. "But high-dynamic range looks like looking through a window."

Fleming, whose recent research on high-dynamic displays is being presented at SIGGRAPH, a graphics conference held this week in San Diego, suspects that this realism will draw people to the technology. And recently, manufacturers have started to pay attention to HDR. Major companies such as Phillips and Samsung have demonstrated prototypes at trade shows. Jason Ledder, a representative for Samsung, says that the company is "doing a variety of research and trying to figure out when and where to incorporate [HDR] into products."
Earlier this year, Dolby bought BrightSide Technologies, a startup based in British Columbia that developed a novel HDR display capable of four hundred times more contrast than a conventional monitor--closer to what the human eye can perceive. While a traditional liquid-crystal display is illuminated by a single white backlight, a BrightSide display is illuminated by an array of tiny white light-emitting diodes (LEDs). This means that individual LEDs can be turned off or on, increasing the darkness or brightness to various parts of the liquid-crystal display. Neither Dolby nor the other companies are providing specific timelines for a product, but Fleming has heard reports that displays could be available, for a few thousand dollars, within a year.
One of the problems with introducing a new type of display, however, is overcoming the perception that there won't be any content that will take advantage of its potential, Fleming says. This is something that has plagued the market for high-definition displays: many people are waiting to buy a high-definition TV until there is more content, and providers are slow to churn out high-definition content until more people have the displays. Many experts believe that the same issue could be a challenge regarding HDR products.

However, the research by Fleming and his colleagues at the University of Bristol, in the UK, and at the University of Central Florida suggests otherwise. "The key questions that everyone's been raising," he says, "are how [HDR] is going to make the transition and how it is going to show a regular image." Usually, he says, regular images can be processed using difficult-to-engineer software that adds contrast. His team's original plan was to determine people's perception of contrast on HDR displays to see how much extra information needs to be added to a regular image to make it appear as an HDR image on an HDR display. To the researchers' surprise, says Fleming, they learned that they didn't need complicated software at all. They surveyed people viewing low-contrast and high-contrast images, both on an HDR display. When the low-contrast images were processed with simple software that amplified pixels, the images were perceived as high contrast. In fact, Fleming says, the average person couldn't tell the difference between the low- and high-contrast images, and all the images looked significantly better than they would have on a regular display.
"The reason this is important," Fleming says, "is that it shows that the technology is ready to deploy immediately. There isn't a technology barrier between releasing these displays and having them widely adopted." He says that such a simple, pixel-amplifying algorithm could easily be incorporated into the display and automatically enhance low-contrast images in real time.
"I think the topic is interesting," says Paul Debevec, a professor of graphics research at the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles. "They're trying to get a handle on the implications of having these HDR displays and find out how it will change things."
In addition to new displays, Debevec says, there will eventually need to be HDR content because, while a low-contrast image looks great on an HDR display, a high-contrast image looks stunning. The basic premise behind producing an HDR image, he says, is to reshoot a scene under different lighting conditions and combine the shots using software. For example, a picture of a person standing in front of an open window would normally look like a dark silhouette surrounded by bright light. Different exposures gather different information, and in the end, the composite HDR image, which captures the bright light as well as the details in the shadows, looks more realistic. However, most cameras don't capture light this way, and while some animators and video-game makers are applying HDR to their work, moviemakers have yet to embrace it.


http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19141/page1/

[bbmf]

An update is available that improves the compatibility and reliability of Windows Vista

Article ID : 938194
Revision : 2.0


INTRODUCTION
This update resolves some compatibility issues and reliability issues in Windows Vista. By applying this update, you can achieve better reliability and hardware compatibility in various scenarios.

This update resolves the following issues:
• The screen may go blank when you try to upgrade the video driver. For more information, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
932539 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932539/) The screen may go blank when you try to upgrade the video driver on a Windows Vista-based computer
• The computer stops responding, and you receive a "Display driver stopped responding and has recovered" error message. You can restart the computer only by pressing the computer's power button.
• The computer stops responding or restarts unexpectedly when you play video games or perform desktop operations.
• The Diagnostic Policy Service (DPS) stops responding when the computer is under heavy load or when very little memory is available. This problem prevents diagnostics from working.
• The screen goes blank after an external display device that is connected to the computer is turned off. For example, this problem may occur when a projector is turned off during a presentation.
• There are stability issues with some graphics processing units (GPUs). These issues could cause GPUs to stop responding (hang).
• Visual appearance issues occur when you play graphics-intensive games.
• You experience poor playback quality when you play HD DVD disks or Blu-ray disks on a large monitor.
• Applications that load the Netcfgx.dll component exit unexpectedly.
• Windows Calendar exits unexpectedly after you create a new appointment, create a new task, and then restart the computer.
• Internet Connection Sharing stops responding after you upgrade a computer that is running Microsoft Windows XP to Windows Vista and then restart the computer.
• The Printer Spooler service stops unexpectedly.
• You receive a "Stop 0x0000009F" error when you put the computer to sleep while a Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) connection is active.
For more information, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
931671 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931671/) Error message when you put a Windows Vista-based computer to sleep while a PPP connection is active: "STOP 0x0000009F"
Back to the top
MORE INFORMATION
Update information
The following files are available for download from the Microsoft Download Center:

Update for Windows Vista
Download the 938194 package now. (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...3-62EEF7C1F7C2)
Update for Windows Vista for x64-based Systems
Download the 938194 package now. (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...A-8B732DCB2756)

For more information about how to download Microsoft support files, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
119591 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/119591/) How to obtain Microsoft support files from online services
Microsoft scanned this file for viruses. Microsoft used the most current virus-detection software that was available on the date that the file was posted. The file is stored on security-enhanced servers that help prevent any unauthorized changes to the file.
Prerequisites
No prerequisites are required.
Restart requirement
You must restart the computer after you apply this update.
Update replacement information
This update does not replace any other updates.
MORE INFORMATION
For more information, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
824684 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/824684/) Description of the standard terminology that is used to describe Microsoft software updates
Back to the top

APPLIES TO
• Windows Vista Ultimate
• Windows Vista Home Premium
• Windows Vista Home Basic
• Windows Vista Enterprise
• Windows Vista Business
• Windows Vista Business 64-bit Edition
• Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Edition
• Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit Edition
• Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit Edition
• Windows Vista Enterprise 64-bit Edition



http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938194

[bbmf]

Eric Schmidt bets the ranch on wireless spectrum


By Robert X. Cringely
bob@cringely.com


This week I was supposed to explain why U.S. broadband prices are so much higher and U.S. broadband speeds are so much lower than in most other developed countries, but then Google made an unexpected reckless move in the wireless bandwidth market and here I am trying to explain it. We'll get back to broadband prices shortly, but for now let's turn to Google, whose stock may very well have already peaked.
What has me all worked up is Google's announcement this week that it intends to bid at least $4.6 billion in the Federal Communication Commission's auction of bandwidth in the 700-MHz band being reclaimed in 2009 from analog television. The auction price can and probably will go a lot higher than that, but $4.6 billion is the reserve price, so Google is saying it will unilaterally make sure the auction is successful and the spectrum is reallocated... IF certain conditions are met.
Google "requested that the Commission should extend to all CMRS-type spectrum licensees clearly delineated, explicitly enforceable, and unwavering obligations to provide (1) open applications, (2) open devices, (3) open wholesale services, and (4) open network access." For those of us who don't regularly hang with the FCC these proposed conditions mean: 1) users should be able to download software from anywhere and use it on their communication devices without restriction; 2) users should be able to use any communication device that meets the technical requirements for connecting to the network no matter who made the device; 3) third-party resellers should be able to buy wholesale bandwidth from auction winners, and; 4) other networks should be able to connect to the 700-MHz network.
These are Internet rules Schmidt is asking for, Internet Engineering Task Force-like rules, that Google wants to apply to this fresh patch of wireless connectivity, turning what would have been yet another mobile phone system into a mobile Internet. The ideas aren't unique to Google and have been pushed for some time by folks including former Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale and former FCC commissioner Reed Hundt. They represent a bold idea that would change forever the way phones are used in the U.S., especially with landline connections in decline.
But this isn't the only proposal for auction rules that will supposedly "open up" the new spectrum. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has proposed his own rules -- leaked to USA Today and the Wall Street Journal -- rules that would mandate opening up the network to a certain extent to third-party devices, though with limits on which frequencies could be accessed and without most of the other requests made by Google and others. AT&T at first opposed Martin's proposed rules then came around to supporting them, and Verizon appears to have done the same.
This is all the highest of theater. Chairman Martin's proposed auction rules won't actually go very far toward opening up the network. And the opposition then grudging acceptance of first AT&T and then Verizon to Martin's proposal is playacting that has more to do with Google than with the FCC chairman. The major wireless carriers have no desire at all to open up this network or any other. The bogeyman here is Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), which is currently restricted from most U.S. mobile networks because, well, nobody can really figure out why. Since most mobile users aren't paying separately for long-distance anyway and most U.S. mobile users can't even make international calls because of high toll fraud, VoIP just burns up minutes and would seem to threaten nobody. Still, the carriers hate and fear VoIP, so they put together this drama of supposed openness in order to make sure that true openness can't happen.
By this time it should be clear that I generally support what Google has proposed and think it is a very good idea for us all. So why, then, does the headline on this column suggest that Google is on crack to have even made such a proposal?
Because they don't know who they are messing with, that's why.
I am 100 percent behind Google's four conditions, but I see very little likelihood that they will be accepted by the full commission. I also see that they have slightly moved the wireless incumbents, who are mean and spiteful companies and WILL HAVE THEIR REVENGE.
I don't think it is clear to a lot of observers just how much Google has at stake in this issue. It goes far beyond the $4.6 billion. Remember that's just the reserve price, and by pledging that amount Google is making sure the auction goes forward at a price that will probably be north of $10 billion. IT IS VERY DOUBTFUL THAT GOOGLE WILL BE THE WINNER OF THAT $10 BILLION AUCTION. The wireless carriers will spend whatever it takes to win, not just because of the prime spectral real estate involved (700 MHz goes through concrete walls like butter), but because they don't want to change operational rules that have been very profitable for them over the years.
You see if Google actually bid and won the 700-MHz auction, they could operate the band exactly as they have proposed the FCC require. They could open the spectrum to devices and networks and services with impunity because winning the auction and paying those big bucks would entitle them to do so. It is only because Google doesn't expect to win, or possibly even to bid, that they are trying to force rules on the eventual winners, the mobile telcos.
I'm all for tilting at windmills -- heck I do it enough myself -- but Google has a lot at risk here and I think they are being foolish, even stupid.
Look who Google is up against -- all the largest Internet service providers in the U.S. Google will not win this even if they win the auction, because the telcos and cable companies are far more skilled and cunning when it comes to lobbying and controlling politicians than Google can ever hope to be. The telcos have spent more than a century at this game and Google hasn't even been in it for a decade. And Google's pockets are no deeper than those of the other potential bidders.
Frankly, I see Google heading for a big loss on this one.
And what they have to lose is more than you might guess. Google is risking its cash crop, leadership in web search.
Bill Gates likes to talk about how fragile is Microsoft's supposed monopoly and how it could disappear in a very short period of time. Well Microsoft is a Pyramid of Giza compared to Google, whose success is dependent on us not changing our favorite search engine.
But what if it is changed for us? What if Verizon, and AT&T, and Comcast, and half a dozen other huge broadband ISPs suddenly cut deals with some search company other than Google and your ISP-supplied browser and homepage no longer give such prominence to Google? The G-folk have rabid competitors who would very much like to take over that top spot. Would we even notice? How different are the search results these days from one engine to another? Not very different.
Yahoo, a company in crisis, fully supports Google's bold move, but you notice they didn't make it. Microsoft has been totally silent. Certainly Microsoft smells blood in the water and will be approaching all the outfits Google may have offended, trying to do exclusive search and ad deals with them.
So what Google has done is a bold and foolish act in which it is hard to find an upside for the company. If they intended to actually win the auction, which I wish they would, then they wouldn't have tried setting these conditions. They would just bid a truckload of money and walk away with the spectrum. But this thing they did do, what is it? It makes no sense at all, and one could argue, in fact, that is fiduciary suicide.
I have thought long and hard and I can see only two ways this could have come about. The first possibility is that Google has begun believing its own press releases, which is not a good idea for any company. Google is an arrogant and geeky company with leaders who have isolated themselves to the extent that they may no longer be in touch with reality. So much success so quick may have convinced them they are smarter than they actually are. It happens a lot. It could be happening here.
That's the most likely and saddest possibility, but it also means that if Google blows it, well then Google deserved to blow it. There is, however, an alternative motivation here beyond simple megalomania and corporate self-delusion: Google may actually be playing a game of poker.
This could be a fake, a head feint on Google's part. By attempting to set these conditions on any eventual auction winner, Google is tacitly telling the mobile carriers that it really doesn't intend to bid or doesn't intend to bid above the $4.6 billion threshold. Emboldened by this the telcos, who are also arrogant and have a kind of reptilian craftiness, may decide to save their resources and only bid, say, $10 billion. But what if Google bids $20 billion? Well then it's a whole new ballgame.

I hope that is Google's plan, but I fear that it isn't.


http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...27_002573.html

[bbmf]

The proton-proton Large Hadron Collider (LHC) particle accelerator and collider will become the world’s largest particle physics laboratory when it begins operations in May 2008.
Nearly finished LHC particle smasher breaks at support point to magnets
Ignoble Nobel medal theft sees prize recovered
International Linear Collider proposed to explore origins of universe
Large Hadron Collider: Does every particle in the universe consist of points, strings, or loops?

Compact Muon Solenoid: Largest physics experiment to be held in 2007
CERN particle accelerator attracts world's largest superconducting magnet
The LHC particle accelerator is being built at Geneva, Switzerland’s CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research).
When in full operation, the LHC particle accelerator will accelerate beams of particles around a 27-kilometer (16.8-mile) (circumference), 21-meter (68.9-foot length), 16-meter (52.5-foot diameter), and 12,500-ton (weight) cylindrical underground chamber to energies never before generated on the Earth.
At full power, the LHC will operate at 7 TeV (teraelectron volt), where one TeV (or, one trillion electron volts) equals 1.60217646 × 10**-7 joules. It will possess a collision-energy of 14 TeV.
The LHC will operate by accelerating sub-atomic particles, specifically protons, to high speeds near the speed of light (the accelerator part) and then by smashing these particles together (the collider part), all within an underground concrete-lined tunnel. It is an international project involving scientists from the 26 member-countries of CERN, along with several other countries.
It has been under construction for about 15 years, where the critical parts of the project are located between 50 and 150 meters (165 and 490 feet) below the surface of the Earth. The underground complex crosses the borders between France and Switzerland, but the majority of it is located in France. Once operational, the LHC is expected to have a lifetime of about 15 years.
The beginning of operations is about six-months behind schedule due to a series of misfortunate accidents and mistakes. In one incident, small-sized magnets, which are located around the tunnel, were damaged when placed under pressure as part of a process to test the LHC. These magnets had to be repaired or replaced.
In addition, one of the large 20-ton magnets was damaged when it was lifted off its mountings, which forced an evacuation when the tunnel was filled with helium gas and dust. The problem was brought about by mistakes in the building of the magnets and anchors.

The website for the LHC is: http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/.

[bbmf]

CHARLES DARWIN's theory of evolution has been the source of much controversy since its publication in 1859, most recently involving the intelligent design (ID) lobby in the US. Now the theory is fuelling another debate, although for once the battle lines have nothing to do with religion.
Instead of pitting God against science, the emerging spat centres on evolutionary algorithms (EAs), which mimic the processes of natural selection and random mutation by "breeding", selecting and re-breeding possible designs to produce the fittest ones.

EAs take two parent designs - for a boat hull, say - and blend components of each, perhaps taking the surface area of one and the curvature of another, to produce multiple hull offspring that combine the features of the parents in different ways. Then the algorithm selects those offspring it considers are worth re-breeding - in this case those with the right combination of parameters to make a better hull. The EA then repeats the process. Although many offspring will be discarded, after thousands of generations or more, useful features accumulate in the same design, and get combined in ways that likely would not have occurred to a human designer. This is because a human does not have the time to combine all the possibilities for each feature and evaluate them, but an EA does. "Human engineers usually design stuff by tweaking a few parameters," says Steve Manos of University College London, who has created optical fibres using EAs.
Proponents of EAs say they could replace traditional methods in many fields from designing exotic new types of optical fibre and USB memory sticks to more aesthetic computer-generated art. Critics argue that the technique may lead to designs that can't be properly evaluated since no human understands which trade-offs were made and therefore where failure is likely.
Another stumbling block is a problem of perception. "To mainstream engineers there is a disbelief that a self-organising process like an EA can produce designs that outperform those designed using conventional top-down, systematic, intelligent design," says Hod Lipson, a computer scientist specialising in evolutionary design at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. "That tension mirrors the tension between evolutionary biology and ID. That's the challenge we need to rise to in winning people over."
Lipson and other members of the US Association for Computing Machinery's Special Interest Group on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (SIGEVO) worry that if they can't persuade their fellow engineers to use EAs, then evolved machines, systems and software that work fantastically well risk being lost.

EAs are nothing new. The automobile and aerospace industries have been using them since the late 1980s to evolve optimal wing, fin and flap profiles for aircraft, and streamlined shapes for cars. Pharmaceutical companies have also bred molecules to find drugs that bind to target proteins, and stock traders have used EAs to second-guess the stock markets.
However, most of these applications require ultra-fast computers, both to breed the thousands, or even billions, of generations and to simulate the results to select those offspring that are fit for re-breeding. This has limited their use to a few niche applications.
That is now changing with the availability of ever more powerful computers, the advent of distributed computing "grids", which pool the resources of thousands of PCs, and the emergence of multicore chips (New Scientist, 10 March, p 26), which suit EAs because it's easy to divide up the tasks between cores. As a result, designs can now be evolved in days rather than months or years and EAs are going mainstream.
"We can now undertake evolutionary problems that were previously too complicated or time-consuming," says John Koza, a computer scientist and EA pioneer from Stanford University in California. "Things we couldn't have done in the past, because it would have taken two months to run the genetic program, are now possible in days or less."
Some of these EAs are being used to come up with more exotic versions of existing technologies. Joe Sullivan at the University of Limerick in Ireland used an EA to make a USB flash memory stick that lasts far longer than those on the market today. Typically, memory sticks can be erased and rewritten about 10,000 times. Every time data is erased, residual charge is left on the storage transistors. Eventually, this builds up and prevents the memory being rewritten. Using large voltages to read, write and erase memory, and applying them for longer causes more residual charge. However, applying too little voltage for too little time could make the memory unreliable. To see if he could extend the lifetime without making the device less reliable, Sullivan created a genetic algorithm that varied the voltages and their timings. The result was a combination that meant the memory stick lasted 30 times longer.
To encourage more of this kind of work, SIGEVO runs the annual Human Competitiveness Awards, dubbed the "Humies". The idea is to reward designs produced by EAs that are "competitive with the work of creative and inventive humans". The winners were announced at the Genetic and Evolutionary Computing Conference (GECCO 2007) in London this month.
Manos walked off with the $5000 gold prize for combining EAs with the emerging field of "holey" optical fibres (New Scientist, 12 June 1999, p 36). These are shot through with tens of micrometre-wide holes whose exact pattern controls the wavelength of light that can be beamed down them. Previously the holes were arranged in a hexagonal pattern, which has limited the range of bandwidths. That changed when Manos's team at the University of Sydney, Australia, allowed an EA to breed exotic new hole patterns. One looked like a flower, with larger ovoids as "petals", and doubled the fibre's bandwidth. They have patented that fibre and founded a company to market it.
Other prizewinners used EAs to do what humans already do, but faster. Pierre Legrand and colleagues at the University of Bordeaux 2, France, developed an evolutionary system to configure the electrodes for cochlear implants. Up to 22 electrodes on the auditory nerve let cochlear implants restore lost hearing, but the voltages and timings of the signals applied to them are highly individual, requiring much adjustment for speech to be audible. Legrand's team took just one-and-a-half days to configure an optimal pattern for one patient whose doctors had not succeeded in 10 years.
Not content with aiming for top results however, another group of researchers is using EAs to produce designs that dodge patents on rival inventions. Koza took a 1-metre-tall, Wi-Fi antenna made by Cisco and attempted to create another that did a better job without infringing Cisco's patent. He used an EA that bred antennas by comparing offspring with how the Cisco patent works and weeding out ones that worked similarly. "Our genetic program engineered around the existing patent and created a novel design that didn't infringe it," says Koza. Not only would this allow a company to save money on licensing fees, the new design was also itself patentable.

Patents aren't the only aspect of human creativity that EAs are closing in on. David Oranchak, a computer scientist based in Roanoke, Virginia, is using EAs to create art. Over six months, he selected the photos voted most interesting by users of the photo sharing site Flickr. His algorithm then used the colours and textures in those photos to automatically select and breed images that humans might like.
Nonetheless, EAs face challenges. A common objection is that some electronic circuits and antennas work fine, but the mathematics behind them is intractable. And if you don't know how an evolved design works, how can you know when it might fail? But Koza calls that objection "self-serving and bogus". "Like any design you can test the hell of the one solution you settle on," he says.
Celebrated UK innovator James Dyson, inventor of the bagless vacuum cleaner, has a more emotional objection. "Evolutionary algorithms will mean the end of those exciting stories about how people made great inventions by accident," he says. "Human ingenuity and intuition should remain crucial in making a success of any product."
But that could change, says Manos. "Once you show them a design that's better than anything on the market that really starts to convince them," he says.



http://www.newscientisttech.com/chan...designers.html

[bbmf]

The black piece of paper can power a small light
Flexible paper batteries could meet the energy demands of the next generation of gadgets, says a team of researchers.
They have produced a sample slightly larger than a postage stamp that can release about 2.3 volts, enough to illuminate a small light.
But the ambition is to produce reams of paper that could one day power a car.
Professor Robert Linhardt, of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, said the paper battery was a glimpse into the future of power storage.
The team behind the versatile paper, which stores energy like a conventional battery, says it can also double as a capacitor capable of releasing sudden energy bursts for high-power applications.
While a conventional battery contains a number of separate components, the paper battery integrates all of the battery components in a single structure, making it more energy efficient.
Integrated devices
The research appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
"Think of all the disadvantages of an old TV set with tubes," said Professor Linhardt, from the New York-based institute, who co-authored a report into the technology.
"The warm up time, power loss, component malfunction; you don't get those problems with integrated devices. When you transfer power from one component to another you lose energy. But you lose less energy in an integrated device."

Professor Robert Linhardt
The battery contains carbon nanotubes, each about one millionth of a centimetre thick, which act as an electrode. The nanotubes are embedded in a sheet of paper soaked in ionic liquid electrolytes, which conduct the electricity.
The flexible battery can function even if it is rolled up, folded or cut.
Although the power output is currently modest, Professor Linhardt said that increasing the output should be easy.
"If we stack 500 sheets together in a ream, that's 500 times the voltage. If we rip the paper in half we cut power by 50%. So we can control the power and voltage issue."
Because the battery consists mainly of paper and carbon, it could be used to power pacemakers within the body where conventional batteries pose a toxic threat.
"I wouldn't want the ionic liquid electrolytes in my body, but it works without them," said Professor Linhardt. "You can implant a piece of paper in the body and blood would serve as an electrolyte."
But Professor Daniel Sperling at University of California, Davis, an expert on alternative power sources for transport, is unconvinced.
'More difficult'
"Batteries and capacitors are being steadily improved, but electricity storage is much more difficult and expensive than liquid fuels and probably will be so forever," he said.
"The world is not going to change as a result of this new invention any time soon."
Professor Linhardt admitted that the new battery is still some way from the commercial market.
"The devices we're making are only a few inches across. We would have to scale up to sheets of newspaper size to make it commercially viable," he said. But at that scale, the voltage could be large enough to power a car, he said.
However, carbon nanotubes are very expensive, and batteries large enough to power a car are unlikely to be cost effective.
"I'm a strong enthusiast of electric vehicles, but it is going to take time to bring the costs down," said Professor Sperling.
But Professor Linhardt said integrated devices, like the paper battery, were the direction the world was moving.
"They are ultimately easier to manufacture, more environmentally friendly and usable in a wide range of devices," he said.
The ambition is to produce the paper battery using a newspaper-type roller printer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6945732.stm

***

Beyond Batteries: Storing Power in a Sheet of Paper

Troy, N.Y. – Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have developed a new energy storage device that easily could be mistaken for a simple sheet of black paper.
The nanoengineered battery is lightweight, ultra thin, completely flexible, and geared toward meeting the trickiest design and energy requirements of tomorrow’s gadgets, implantable medical equipment, and transportation vehicles.
Along with its ability to function in temperatures up to 300 degrees Fahrenheit and down to 100 below zero, the device is completely integrated and can be printed like paper. The device is also unique in that it can function as both a high-energy battery and a high-power supercapacitor, which are generally separate components in most electrical systems. Another key feature is the capability to use human blood or sweat to help power the battery.
Details of the project are outlined in the paper “Flexible Energy Storage Devices Based on Nanocomposite Paper” published Aug. 13 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The semblance to paper is no accident: more than 90 percent of the device is made up of cellulose, the same plant cells used in newsprint, loose leaf, lunch bags, and nearly every other type of paper.
Rensselaer researchers infused this paper with aligned carbon nanotubes, which give the device its black color. The nanotubes act as electrodes and allow the storage devices to conduct electricity. The device, engineered to function as both a lithium-ion battery and a supercapacitor, can provide the long, steady power output comparable to a conventional battery, as well as a supercapacitor’s quick burst of high energy.
The device can be rolled, twisted, folded, or cut into any number of shapes with no loss of mechanical integrity or efficiency. The paper batteries can also be stacked, like a ream of printer paper, to boost the total power output.
“It’s essentially a regular piece of paper, but it’s made in a very intelligent way,” said paper co-author Robert Linhardt, the Ann and John H. Broadbent Senior Constellation Professor of Biocatalysis and Metabolic Engineering at Rensselaer.
“We’re not putting pieces together – it’s a single, integrated device,” he said. “The components are molecularly attached to each other: the carbon nanotube print is embedded in the paper, and the electrolyte is soaked into the paper. The end result is a device that looks, feels, and weighs the same as paper.”
The creation of this unique nanocomposite paper drew from a diverse pool of disciplines, requiring expertise in materials science, energy storage, and chemistry. Along with Linhardt, authors of the paper include Pulickel M. Ajayan, professor of materials science and engineering, and Omkaram Nalamasu, professor of chemistry with a joint appointment in materials science and engineering. Senior research specialist Victor Pushparaj, along with postdoctoral research associates Shaijumon M. Manikoth, Ashavani Kumar, and Saravanababu Murugesan, were co-authors and lead researchers of the project. Other co-authors include research associate Lijie Ci and Rensselaer Nanotechnology Center Laboratory Manager Robert Vajtai.
The researchers used ionic liquid, essentially a liquid salt, as the battery’s electrolyte. It’s important to note that ionic liquid contains no water, which means there’s nothing in the batteries to freeze or evaporate. “This lack of water allows the paper energy storage devices to withstand extreme temperatures,” Kumar said.
Along with use in small handheld electronics, the paper batteries’ light weight could make them ideal for use in automobiles, aircraft, and even boats. The paper also could be molded into different shapes, such as a car door, which would enable important new engineering innovations.
“Plus, because of the high paper content and lack of toxic chemicals, it’s environmentally safe,” Shaijumon said.
Paper is also extremely biocompatible and these new hybrid battery/supercapcitors have potential as power supplies for devices implanted in the body. The team printed paper batteries without adding any electrolytes, and demonstrated that naturally occurring electrolytes in human sweat, blood, and urine can be used to activate the battery device.
“It’s a way to power a small device such as a pacemaker without introducing any harsh chemicals – such as the kind that are typically found in batteries – into the body,” Pushparaj said.
The materials required to create the paper batteries are inexpensive, Murugesan said, but the team has not yet developed a way to inexpensively mass produce the devices. The end goal is to print the paper using a roll-to-roll system similar to how newspapers are printed.
“When we get this technology down, we’ll basically have the ability to print batteries and print supercapacitors,” Ajayan said. “We see this as a technology that’s just right for the current energy market, as well as the electronics industry, which is always looking for smaller, lighter power sources. Our device could make its way into any number of different applications.”
The team of researchers has already filed a patent protecting the invention. They are now working on ways to boost the efficiency of the batteries and supercapacitors, and investigating different manufacturing techniques.
"Energy storage is an area that can be addressed by nanomanufacturing technologies and our truly inter-disciplinary collaborative activity that brings together advances and expertise in nanotechnology, room-temperature ionic liquids, and energy storage devices in a creative way to devise novel battery and supercapacitor devices," Nalamasu said.
The paper energy storage device project was supported by the New York State Office of Science, Technology, and Academic Research (NYSTAR), as well as the National Science Foundation (NSF) through the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center at Rensselaer.


http://news.rpi.edu/update.do

[bbmf]

For every spacecraft there comes a moment when its keepers must ask “is it time to shut this thing down and move on?” Sometimes the question answers itself, as when the hardware fails in space, the data stream drops out and there’s no way to recover it. Sometimes the answer hangs on a cost/benefit calculation – “are we still getting our money’s worth here?”
Colleen Hartman, deputy associate NASA administrator for science, compares it to deciding when it’s time to get a new car or keep the old one running. “You are going to come to the point where getting a new car is the right thing to do,” she says. But Hartman is referring to the Hubble Space Telescope, and the possibility that it can be kept running even after the space shuttle fleet is grounded for good in 2010.
Next year’s “final” Hubble servicing mission will leave behind a docking device that can be used either to attach a deorbit motor, or to dock some future human spacecraft for yet more maintenance and upgrades. NASA has no plans for the latter approach. Instead, says Matt Mountain, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute that manages use of the Hubble, “it’s done an amazing job, but there are other great things we need to do.”
Ultimately, the decision will be made by the scientists who put together the decadal survey for astrophysics due out in 2010, setting research priorities for the decade of the 20-teens. Just this week scientists have released new Hubble data with evidence that mysterious “dark matter” exists in the Universe. But can a 17-year-old instrument keep delivering new discoveries, or should it be scrapped for something newer? What do you think?

http://aviationweek.typepad.com/spac...the_hubbl.html

***

Hubble Facts
The Hubble Space Telescope is a joint ESA/NASA project and was launched in 1990 by the Space Shuttle mission STS-31 into a low-Earth orbit 600 km above the ground. During its lifetime Hubble has become one of the most important science projects ever.
Mission Objectives
Hubble's orbit above the Earth's distorting atmosphere allows astronomers to make the very high resolution observations that are essential to open new windows onto planets, stars and galaxies. Hubble was designed as a high standard flagship mission and has paved the way for other space-based observatories. Notably it can access the otherwise invisible ultraviolet part of the spectrum, and also has access to areas of the infrared not visible from the ground.
Mission Name
The Hubble Space Telescope is named after Edwin Powell Hubble (1889-1953) who was one of the great pioneers of modern astronomy.
Spacecraft
Design:
At the heart of Hubble are a 2.4 m primary mirror and a collection of five science instruments that work across the entire optical spectrum& - from infrared, through the visible, to ultraviolet light. There is one camera, three combined camera/spectrographs and a set of fine guidance sensors onboard Hubble. Hubble was designed to be serviced in space, allowing outdated instruments to be replaced. The telescope was placed into a low-Earth orbit by the Space Shuttle and uses modular components so that it can be recovered on subsequent Shuttle Servicing missions and faulty or outdated parts more easily replaced before being re-released into orbit.
Power: Power for the computers and scientific instruments onboard is provided by two 2.6 x 7.1 m solar panels. The power generated by the panels is also used to charge six nickel-hydrogen batteries that provide power to the spacecraft for about 25 minutes per orbit while Hubble flies through the Earth's shadow.
Manoeuvring:
The telescope uses an elaborate system of attitude controls to improve its stability during observations. A system of reaction wheels manoeuvres the telescope into place and its position in space is monitored by gyroscopes. Fine Guidance Sensors (FGS) are used to lock onto guide stars to ensure the extremely high pointing accuracy needed to make very accurate observations.
Dimensions:
Length: 15.9 m, diameter: 4.2 m. In addition two solar panels each measuring 2.6 x 7.1 m.
Mass:
11 110 kg (at the time of launch).
Instruments
The Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS)
The Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2)
The Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS)
The Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS)
Fine Guidance Sensors (FGS'es)
Orbit
Hubble was deployed by the Space Shuttle Discovery (STS-31) into a circular orbit 600 km above the ground, inclined at 28.5 degrees
to the Equator. The time for one orbit is between 96 and 97 minutes.
Operations Centre
The science operations are co-ordinated and conducted by the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore and at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt.

http://hubble.esa.int/science-e/www/...objectid=33008

***

View of Hubble's Housing

HUBBLE'S FLESH AND BONES
Designers of the Hubble Space Telescope had to take into account the conditions in which it was to operate. Hubble would be subject to the rigors of zero gravity and temperature extremes — fluctuations of more than 100 degrees Fahrenheit during each trip around Earth.
To accommodate this less-than-hospitable operating environment, Hubble was given a "skin," or blanket, of multilayered insulation (MLI), which protects the telescope from temperature extremes. Beneath the MLI is a lightweight aluminum shell, which provides an external structure to the spacecraft and houses its optical system and science instruments.
Hubble's optical system is held together by a truss (supporting "skeleton") measuring 210 in (5.3 m) in length and 115 in (2.9 m) in diameter. The 252 lb (114 kg) truss is made of graphite epoxy — the same material used in many golf clubs, tennis racquets, and bicycles. Graphite epoxy is a stiff, strong, and lightweight material that resists expanding and contracting in extremes of temperature.

***

Mission
Launch: April 24, 1990 from space shuttle Discovery (STS-31)
Deployment: April 25, 1990
Mission Duration: Up to 20 years
Servicing Mission 1: December 1993
Servicing Mission 2: February 1997
Servicing Mission 3A: December 1999
Servicing Mission 3B: February 2002
Size
Length: 43.5 ft (13.2 m)
Weight: 24,500 lb (11,110 kg)
Maximum Diameter: 14 ft (4.2 m)
Cost at Launch
$1.5 billion
Spaceflight Statistics
Orbit: At an altitude of 307 nautical miles (569 km, or 353 miles), inclined 28.5 degrees to the equator (low-Earth orbit)
Time to Complete One Orbit: 97 minutes
Speed: 17,500 mph (28,000 kph)
Optical Capabilities
Hubble Can’t Observe: The Sun or Mercury, which is too close to the Sun
Sensitivity to Light: Ultraviolet through infrared (115–2500 nanometers)
First Image: May 20, 1990: Star Cluster NGC 3532
Data Statistics
Hubble transmits about 120 gigabytes of science data every week.
That's equal to about 3,600 feet (1,097 meters) of books on a shelf.
The rapidly growing collection of pictures and data is stored on
magneto-optical disks.
Power Needs
Energy Source: The Sun
Mechanism: Two 25-foot solar panels
Power usage: 2,800 watts
Pointing Accuracy
In order to take images of distant, faint objects, Hubble must be extremely steady
and accurate. The telescope is able to lock onto a target without deviating
more than 7/1000th of an arcsecond, or about the width of a human hair
seen at a distance of 1 mile.
Hubble's Mirrors
Primary Mirror Diameter: 94.5 in (2.4 m)
Primary Mirror Weight: 1,825 lb (828 kg)
Secondary Mirror Diameter: 12 in (0.3 m)
Secondary Mirror Weight: 27.4 lb (12.3 kg)
Power Storage
Batteries: 6 nickel-hydrogen (NiH)
Storage Capacity: equal to 20 car batteries


http://space.about.com/gi/dynamic/of...quick_facts%2F

[bbmf]

For mobile professionals, poor battery life from a device is the ultimate enemy to staying connected on the go. Everyone wants longer battery life from phones, laptops and cameras.
Researchers from the Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS in Erlangen have teamed up with scientists from the Fraunhofer Institute for Physical Measurement Techniques IPM and the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Applied Materials Research IFAM to devise a way to power electronic circuits by using body heat.
The researchers were able to construct a method of turning body heat into electricity using the same principal as thermoelectric generators (TEG) made from semi-conductor elements. TEGs extract electricity from the temperature difference between a hot and cold environment.
Researchers from Fraunhofer say that typically a temperature difference of several tens of degrees is needed, but that the temperature difference between the body and the environment is only a few degrees.
That means that with such a small temperature difference, the amount of electricity generated is very low voltage. The TEG can deliver 200 millivolts when most electronics require one or two volts to operate.
“We combined a number of components in a completely new way to create circuits that can operate on 200 millivolts,” says Peter Spies, manager of this sub-project at the IIS. “This has enabled us to build entire electronic systems that do not require an internal battery, but draw their energy from body heat alone.”
With all the current recalls on batteries from Nokia and the huge recall last year of Sony made notebook batteries, alternative methods of powering electronic devices are a huge area of research. Whether this body heat power technology works or not, it is only a matter of time before consumers can stop depending on batteries and move to fuel cells and other methods of getting power for electronic devices.


http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8496