It may be true that the Polar ice cap has not become less in 2013, in fact increased by 50% compared to the lowest in 2012, but this is still low compared to its highest level.
Global warming trend does not mean that it will keep on getting warmer year by year. There will surely be fluctuations in temperature. What is important is the trend.
The temperature trend appear to be very little change in global temperature for the past 17 years and yet the Ice cap keeps on getting less and less year by year, until 2013, when it suddenly increase by 50%.
It could be due to efforts in conserving the environments by using Electric and hybrid cars in the USA and Canada. In China, it is a different story and yet, even in China, environmental awareness has increased.
These climate change denials are just nonsense. They don't seem to understand anything about statistics. They pick on exceptions instead of the general trends. They even ignore all the efforts to reduce global warming so far and the very clear and obvious eveidences of global warming such as the continual reduction in the polar ice caps for the past decade, and yet dismiss all those years, just because in 2013, the polar ice cap has increased in size.
That is good news, but it still has a long way to go back to the original levels of ice caps.
Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort
Dr. Robert J. Brulle is a professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Credit: CASBS
A new study conducted by Drexel University's environmental sociologist
Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and
funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study
marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of
the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.
Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that
constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of
monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most
consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known
conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money,"
or concealed funding.
The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the
largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back
from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the
decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to
countermovement organizations through third party pass-through
foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot
be traced, has risen dramatically.
Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel's
College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long
fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences. The study was published today in Climatic Change,
one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world.
The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort
to undermine public faith in climate science and block action by the
U.S. government to regulate emissions. This countermovement involves a
large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks,
advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with
strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.
"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and
ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of
global warming," said Brulle. "Like a play on Broadway, the
countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian
scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an
organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in
the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what's
driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the
scenes."
To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle
developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the
U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization,
combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data
submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service. The final
sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants
totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010.
Key findings include:
Conservative foundations have bank-rolled denial. The largest and most
consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial
are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle
Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable
Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote
ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.
Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible
funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the
ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change
denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly
traceable contributions.
Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with
the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial
organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust
is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one
foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding
used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate
change.
Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data
compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in
contributions to climate change denying organizations can be
specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the
income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.
"The real issue here is one of democracy. Without a free flow of
accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability
become impossible," said Brulle. "Money amplifies certain voices above
others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square.
Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings
about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and
remedies of this massive global threat. At the very least, American
voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."
This study is part one of a three-part project by Brulle to examine the
climate movement in the U.S. at the national level. The next step in the
project is to examine the environmental movement or the climate change
movement. Brulle will then compare the whole funding flow to the entire
range of organizations on both sides of the debate.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capchg.html zero energy travel
Initially I thought the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is just too accurate and not scientific but just a few days ago realised that it is actually completely wrong.
My lecturer at City University London, in 1980 in a course on Thermodynamics in a BSc in Electronic Engineering, only showed the Carnot's equation to show the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. He mentioned briefly and without compassion that some people use it as a universal law to prove that we cannot convert one form of energy to another completely. However the equation certainly does not show it.
Only recently that I realised that my understanding of the textbook 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is wrong. I was surprised that all my colleagues believe that we cannot convert completely from one form of energy to another because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so I decided to visit my textbooks. I read 4 textbooks including the most recent textbook, Engineering Thermodynamics.
Carnot's engine is just a derivation of the energy conversion equation from heat to mechanical energy and it is an example of a reversible engine. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics includes reversibles ( shouldn't it be, irreversibles) or commonly called losses such as friction and electrical resistance. Strangely, I can't find the definition of revesibles in the internet.
The textbooks also mention that it is assumed that these reversibles cannot become zero because of our common experiences that losses in inevitable and occur widely in our environment. I notice that this is actually nonsense. It reminds me of the days when learned people believe that the Earth is Flat because their environments appear flat.
I still do not question the validity of the textbook definition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics but I found that it is very strange that it is the only equation on energy conversion that includes losses. All others, usually do not include losses in their treatment such as Newton's laws of motion, F=ma, Einstein's E=mc^2 and Faraday's law for the electrical to mechanical energy conversion. However, by including losses, it makes the textbook description of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics much more accurate but not practical. Now I realise that it is completely wrong.
The required precision of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is an infinite number of decimal places. This is similar to requiring that the voltage must be accurate to an infinite decimal places for a capacitor to be fully charged as shown in the link above. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capchg.html
The textbooks note also that the lower limit of the reversibles(losses such as friction) is still unknown because they keep on dropping. Actually, given infinite resources such as time and materials, we can get zero losses. With that, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is incorrect.
It is similar to saying that a capacitor will never be fully charged because it will take an infinite time to be fully charged. It is only asymptotically approaching to be fully charged. It also occurs in many other engineering circumstances.
It is wrong to say that a capacitor cannot be fully charged. We consider a capacitor to be fully charged when the capacitor voltage is equal to the charging voltage value to within our required precision.
Similarly for energy conversions. We consider the conversion to occur fully when the conversion efficiency reaches a certain practical precision. It can be 99.9% or even 90%. It all depends on how much money you are willing to spend.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics also breaks a few other laws and conventions. The textbooks note that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not agree with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the conservation of energy. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics allow full conversion of energy. Textbooks explained it as a different case. Anything that breaks the most fundamental of laws such as the Law of the Conservation of Energy, must be scrutinised closely.
The assumption, that our environment is mostly lossy is completely false. The lossless environment occurs in full vacuum and at absolute zero temperature. This environment is billions of times more common than our atmospheric environment. It is called Outer Space.
If you want to know about it, and myself, you may refer to my pre publication at Arxiv called Zero Energy Travel. I had patented at WIPO an invention called Zero Energy Transportation System. My current employer, Universiti Malaysis Sabah refused to finance its patenting so I patented it as an individual. The Japanese Patent Office, had allowed the name and deemed the invention novel but not fully inventive. However, JPO made a lot of wrong comments about my invention. I shall file an informal comment to defend my invention.
I am looking for financiers to finance the patenting and commercialising of this invention and the coming, Zero Aerodynamic Drag vehicles. I don't think UMS is willing to finance it. They are so brainwashed by these textbooks.
I shall write ebooks explaining in details these concepts and my inventions. Still waiting for EIN from the US Government. It has to be self publication. I don't think the established textbook publishers want to publish anything that proves that their textbooks are wrong. http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/sell-ebooks/ is a start. Already learning about smashwords
There is nothing wrong with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as long as it sticks to science. Science is mathematical and simple. If it sticks with simple Energy Conversion from Heat to Mechanical, there is nothing wrong with it.
Telekom Malaysia introduced the dumbbell performance based criteria in 2004 when Wahid took over as CEO. I thought it was uniquely Malaysian management practise until yesterday when an NUS professor revealed that they used the same performance criteria since year 2000 and in an even more extreme case where 50% of the assessed will not get any salary increment and bonus.
Telekom Malaysia only make around 10% of the staff without any increment or bonus. I suffered this fate so for the next five years, I was put into the floating pool without any real job placed under the management of a junior human resource manager. It was actually heaven but I don't think it is sustainable. It is better that I be placed in this non-performing pool compared to others who may not be able to survive and I don't mind because we have other means of earning a living. I teach part time at various institutes as well as learn other skills.
At that time I thought it was all due to dishonesty and corruption that led Wahid to implement these dumbbell curved performance based criteria because it is so obviously wrong and stupid, but when I heard about it from an Electrical Engineering educated Professor, now I realise it is just another case of mass idiocy, similar to Malaysians celebrating the formation.independence of Malaysian on the 31st of August 1957 or the people thinking that the earth is flat.
This dumbbell curve is a mathematical formula called normal probability distribution that shows a graph that is shaped like a dumbbell so it is just a simpler name for it. The word normal does not mean that it is the standard way or practise, it is just a name. There are other formulas, that can be used to describe probability distribution which is just a chance of an event in happening. Given a number of people with various performance levels, usually nature tends to follow this normal distribution but the mean, that is the highest part of the curve tends to vary for various circumstances.
For example, in IQ tests, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient, if the whole world is tabulated into a graph, the median(central part or mean) is 100.http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx. If your IQ is above 134, you shall be the top 1% of the total population.
What happens if you are in a group of people with an IQ of above 134? The distribution will still follow the dumbbell curve, except that the median level will be higher depending on the people who are in the sample. The majority will be at the median level, because that is how median is defined, and very few people will be above the median level. This is just nature and we cannot argue against this.
The problem comes when you apply a forced ranking such as anyone below the median will not get any salary increment or bonus whatsoever. This is despite you being the top 1% of the population in that group. In a team where everyone is excellent, with the nobel prize calibre, 50% of them will still be assessed as having no growth contribution. NUS claimed to have an exception, so does Telekom Malaysia. Everyone claims to have an exception, but it will never be implemented in practise.
When you find it necessary to have an exception, you should know that the system itself is fundamentally wrong. It has to be corrected. But this dumbbell performance criteria is not only wrong, it encourages the opposite of the aim. It encourages the reduction of performance instead of encouraging more performance in whatever worthwhile criteria.
In NUS, every lecturer is a PhD holder and must graduate with First Class Honours. If 50% of them cannot contribute anything to NUS, maybe they should certainly contribute better in other Universities. NUS and Telekom Malaysia solves this problem by promising rotations. That professor justifies it by saying that research results come in cycles. So the performance measurement is based on luck instead of performance potential.
If you study the results of the performance assessments, you should notice a pattern of rotations which tend to be evenly distributed so it no longer follows the dumbbell curve distribution which is the nature of things. So you are not following the dumbbell criteria anymore.
Worst, you discriminate against the highest performing worker who should be getting the highest reward for the talent and results that they had contributed. It is just the nature of things that once you are good, you are always good. That is the reality in life. Even in a group of excellent people, some will be consistently better than others. If the results shows otherwise, it shows that the performance measurement is faulty because it goes against the nature of things.
The greatest beneficiary of the rotation system will the be the weakest in the group who will still get the chance for a reward instead of NONE at all if the dumbbell curve is to be followed strictly. The point is, this system encourages less performance instead of more performance.
It is just a mathematial truth that the greatest benefit for the workers is when they all perform to the least of their abilities. They can get the maximum result for the least effort by not performing at all. Companies can introduce overall measurements such as an amount of bonus linked to the overall performance, but when the chance of getting the bonus is so low, maximum effort, especially from the best workers, will not be worthwhile. Human nature is such that, they will still work normally so they will expand their energy somewhere else, instead of the company which does not value their talent and effort. It is certainly advantageous to the worst workers.
The worst thing is that, it destroys team spirits. Do you want to introduce workers who will take your salary increment and bonus? You must be an idiot to do this. If you really have any intelligence and really want to improve, you'd better prepare yourself to leave this institution all the time because all humans want to get to know excellent workers so that we all can improve together, instead of being penalised.
People do improve among excellent people. I have personal experiences with this in my primary and secondary schools with clear results, as well as in Telekom Malaysia but with unclear outcomes. The dumbbell curve is the truth but it is not static. The median level can improve but not its distribution.
The true performance based criteria is still the seniority based criteria because it is certain that humans improve with more experience. Any performance criteria that denies this performance improvement is therefore certainly wrong. It is as clear as daylight and proven for generations and yet people prefer to ignore them.
IQ is well known as the ability to solve problems, provided the facts are readily available and normal rules apply.
EQ is the ability to be successful other than IQ, i.e. not due to problem solving skills but other skills, such as negotiating skills, empathy and networking.
This gives you an idea where a person is has high IQ can be successful where facts are respected and therefore problems are actually solved, whereas EQ is required when problem solving using hard facts are not available. EQ is introduced in order to resolve issues where people with apparent high IQ failed to be successful but you notice that this is an environment where facts are not respected. This is not a conducive environment for real progress and facts point this out very clearly.
Developing nations put up social leaders that are high in EQ but low in IQ whereas advanced nations such as Germany, emphasise more on hard scientific skills such as IQ. Spain and Greece ma appear like a developed nation but in these nations, there are more marketing people than technical people to the extent that despite high unemployment rate, it is still very difficult to get workers who are skill in hard technical skills in hospitals, so hospitals don't have enough workers. Whereas in Germany, even small villages are capable of producing advanced machines for themselves instead of relying on outsourcing.
Engineering is well know as requiring high IQ whereas marketing requires EQ skills, but in countries that reqire high EQ skills such as in Malaysia such as the ability to bribe, lie, cheat and cronyistic, will make you more successful than those who have such high IQ who can actually solve problems. A successful German worker will not survive in environments that require high EQ such as marketing such as in Spain and Malaysia whereas a worker who is highly successful in Spain and Malaysia, mostly in marketing skills, will not survive in Germany that requires more on hard technical skills.
However which nations are more successful? Germany or Spain? Germany of course. Despite having less requirement for having EQ and more requirements for IQ, German economy remains strong. There is no fear of the China competition because even China buys from Germany.
The conclusion is simple, environments that favour IQ over EQ means that the environment will lead to success, whereas, environments where EQ is required in order to be successful, means that the environment will lead to destruction sooner or later, because because problem solving is not based on facts but rather on emotions. How can a nation where deception and corruption is a necessity in order to survive, can ever be successful?
Malaysia is not interested in commercialising research expenditure. We should not blame the government alone. I had attended talks by our professors, who were given the responsibility to allocate research funds and their intentions had been to ensure a reasonable chance of commercialisations. The public is angry at the low level of commercialisation and the watchdogs and auditors had pointed out the large amount of research expenditure that do not lead to any commercialisation. However these auditors, as usual, only know how to point out problems but have no clue whatsoever how to solve these problems. Citizens and potential researchers such as myself are also responsible for such low level of commercialisation for not complaining about them.
All these are due to no effort at all to protect the intellectual properties arising out of all these research due to many invalid reasons. I only found out once I had spent more than RM4000 out of my own money to patent and attempt to commercialise various ideas. Luckily it was my ambition to patent ideas just because I read about patents and aspire to be an inventor, that is all.
Patents are the only way to protect intellectual properties arising out of any research work. If you don't protect your intellectual property, there is no way we can commercialise the idea because it will be stolen immediately. There is no point in commercialising something that can be stolen easily and ideas can be stolen easily. No patent, no commercialisation.
All Malaysian research funds do not have allocation for patenting. They don't really care if there is a patent arising out of the research. The only conclusion is that the funds have no interest in commercialising the research findings. No matter how many words are mentioned about the importance of commercialising ideas, if patenting is not deemed at all important, there is no way it can ever be commercialised. If you think these research funds actually desire patents to be produced, how come they don't allocate any fund for patenting? Yes, the recipients of the funds are supposed to patent ideas arising out of the research activities but how can you expect them to patent them if there is no money at all allocated for it. The patents will cost much more than the research funds so what is the point of patenting? Worse, if the recipients have the money to patent, why should they request for research funds?
True patents are indeed expensive, and true protection can amount to billions of ringgit for each patent alone. How come? Because patents must be applied in each country and maintenance fees must be paid every year in each of this country for a total of 196 countries.
But to protect an idea, you don't need a patent. And getting a patent for any idea is very very difficult but getting protection for an idea is very easy and you don't need to get a patent for that idea. What is needed is just to file for a patent for that idea. This filing will cost only RM280 and with it, all research ideas will be protected for life and there will be chance for it to be commercialised because industries can utilise these ideas without them being stolen easily and therefore allow companies to make profits.
Why can't the research fund managers allocate this amount of money in order to ensure a reasonable chance that the research result can be commercialised? It is due to a large number of misconceptions.
1. Filing a patent is difficult.
Not true because wrong patent contents, are also accepted for filing. Even though there are a lot of wrong ideas, concepts, spelling errors, missing information, the patent filing can still be accepted, and therefore, the main idea can still be protected. Not filing at all is even much worse because there is no protection at all. It is better to file wrongly, than not to file at all.
2. You need to prove that your idea can work.
Also nonsense. Wrong and ridiculous ideas can still be filed. Whether a patent can be granted is another issue but at least an idea is protected the moment it is filed. Once the idea is filed, only then will we start to work to prove that the idea truly works or not.
3. You need a working prototype.
Completely wrong. Well documented but surprisingly that most Malaysians believe that a prototype is required. In fact, it is the opposite. A prototype reduces the chance of getting a patent because many people are exposed to the idea making the patent invalid. Even a computer program is not allowed. Only its flow chart is required. A working computer program is rejected in the filing process. Please note that a patent is an idea, not a particular design and therefore not a prototype.
4. You must use an agent in order to file a patent.
Not true also. In fact the world patent authority gives discounts for patent filings done by individuals. Not true in Malaysia. Even its online patent filing does not allow individual filing despite having options for individuals or agent filing. I had managed to successfully file despite this limitation for the local filing but for the national phase of the PCT filing, I may have to file manually because the online software does not allow filing if no valid documents to prove that the filing is done by a patent agent.
5. You need to do a patent search in order to file.
Not true at all. It is better to do a patent search yourself but in the official search, whatever search that you or any unoffical body such as patent agents had done, is ignored any way.
You need to pay for the official search but only if you want to get a patent approval.
6. You need to get a patent in order to get protection.
No. Once a patent filing is done, your idea is protected. You are in fact given 30 months before we lose any protection unless we can get a patent approval. Within this 30 months, no other people can exploit your idea for commercial gain without your approval. It is just like a patent protection but limited only to this 30 months. After 30 months, you can still get extensions but penalties need to be paid but this penalty is equivalent to the patent fees anyway, so not such a major financial burden.7. Patent search is expensive.
No. The official search fee cost in Malaysia is around RM1000. This is only required if you want to get your patent approved. If you just want your idea to be protected, there is no need to do any patent search. Nobody else can patent your idea any more and your idea is published for other people to refer to.
8. Patent protection is time consuming.
Not true as well. The moment you file a patent, it is already protected.
9. Getting a patent makes you rich.
Not true and actually the greatest stumbling block. Out of jealousy, the authorities try to prevent people from getting rich out of their patents. Most patent holders are not rich because of their patents. Even Edison, who invented so many things, do not become as rich as some other people who do not invent at all. Some Malaysian professors with lots of patents, are also not rich at all. At least their ideas are protected, instead of being wasted.
10. Patents will make research work useless.
A patent is just an idea. It has little academic value but these ideas have the potential to be useful. We can still produce lots of research papers from these basic ideas by trying to develop these ideas into working prototypes that can be commercialised easily.
11. Patents cannot protect your ideas, at least in Malaysia.
We have government agencies who can enforce the protection of your patents. You don't need to spend any money in order to protect your patents once a patent is granted. Of course, it is up to us, to protect our property in the end.
12. Patents robs the people.
A patent gives you the right to the idea to do as you please and to prevent other people from exploiting the idea to make money. If unscrupulous people get hold of your idea, they can prevent you from using your own idea and also rob the public. If your intention is to make a public contribution, then you must file your idea into a patent. In this way, you can donate the idea to humanity. The problem is that, since industries need to spend a huge amount of money to develop the ideas, they will be unwilling to spend on ideas that cannot be patented. Your idea will remain idea for a very long time, if you just file it, and not get approval for a patent.
The battery came encased in a simple thin plastic deliver bag with no
protection around the battery. Sorry ECell but taking the slow boat
from China (Literally) I would expect a little more protection. So...5
points off for shipping style.
What was fairly impressive was the time to ship from England to Canada
less the days the post was closed for weekends and holidays totalled 7
business days. So...5 points back for delivery as promised.
The battery is currently doing it's initial charge on the universal
charger before I pop it in, clear my stats and start testing.
The first thing I can say about it is...Wow...Shiny. I like shiny things. :P
Aesthetics aside, it fits properly, nice and snug under the original
rear housing. I will have to get used to a "thin" phone again at least
for a while...
Ok. Prediction time...
I don't see this battery making 2430 mAh but who knows. Li-Pol is
different stuff and hopefully it's what slim dreams are made of.
For $17.00 US, including shipping, I won't complain if it hits 1700-1800 mAh but here's hoping.
Attached are some photos of the HTC Stock, The Cameron Sino Technology
and the ECell batteries side by each and parallel for your enjoyment and
viewing pleasure. :P Notice the dimensional similarities between the
stock and the ECell.
I don't have my scales of power and wisdom handy so I was unable to
weigh the batteries but it feels slightly lighter to the touch but not
by a considerable amount.
Right now it is at 3.85 volts and rising and very cool to the touch.
Once it's done it's initial charge I am going to run it dry under normal
use a few times to calibrate the battery and post the results for
average longevity, coolness to the touch during use, charging, and
charge while using.
I will also post the calibrated mAh reading as well as any temperature fluctuations, etc.
2011-12-31:
-Battery took 4 hours to charge up to 4.218 volts
-Estimated full from empty AC charge is 4.5 hours
-No heat generation to speak of during charging or use so far.
2012-01-02:
-Battery has been charged and fully discharged 3 times now. Reset all
stats and running an Antutu Battery Test on it that I will also run on
the stock and CS 2200 mAh to have some comparisons that mean something.
Testing setup is as follows:
-Same phone with CM7.2 overclocked to 806 mhz to speed up the testing process for all three batteries
-Batteries all conditioned and then charged for 8 hours prior to testing
-No changing of configured apps, services, etc on phone during testing
-batterystats.bin and Battery Monitor Pro history is wiped between batteries
-Wifi and data turned off so the phone does essentially nothing
-Antutu stops phone from locking, dimming, downclocking etc. so it's basically running all out for the entire duration
-No one seems to know what the scores are or how they relate to anyone else but I figure they will relate to each other.
-Once test is complete run Antutu again to run the battery down to 1%
for shutdown and get final burn time results from Battery Monitor Pro
TEST 1: ECell Gold 2430 mAh replacement battery
Test start time: 03:03 AM
Test start %: 100%
Test end time: 06:40 AM
Test end %: 19%
Antutu Test duration: 03:37
Rundown end time: 07:22 AM
Rundown end %: 1%
Total test duration: 4:19
Test score: 652
TEST 2: HTC 1230 mAh stock battery
Test start time: 12:58 PM
Test start %: 100%
Test end time: 03:48 PM
Test end %: 19%
Antutu Test duration: 03:00
Rundown end time: 4:32 PM
Rundown end %: 1%
Total test duration: 03:44
Test score: 508
TEST 3: Cameron Sino 2200 mAh replacement battery
Test start time: 05:10 PM
Test start %: 100%
Test end time: 11:31 PM
Test end %: 19%
Antutu Test duration: 06:21
Rundown end time: 12:45 AM
Rundown end %: 1%
Total test duration: 07:35
Test score: 1145
Final Results For ECell Gold, HTC Stock, and Cameron Sino:
-3 Hours and 44 Minutes For HTC Stock Battery
-4 Hours and 19 Minutes For ECell Gold Battery
-7 Hours and 35 Minutes For Cameron Sino Battery
-The ECell Gold, at 13.34% more capacity than the HTC Stock battery, comes in at far less than it's advertised 2430 mAh.
-The Cameron Sino, at 50.52% more capacity than the HTC Stock battery,
comes in at more than it's advertised capacity of 2200 mAh
The Conclusion:
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and you can't cheat physics.
Applying the same battery technology you can really only expect marginal
performance gains in the same form factor as is shown with the
underachievement of the ECell Gold compared to it's advertised capacity.
There were no surprises here.
Double the form factor brought double the capacity. If you're cool with
a "Fat Phone", the Cameron Sino Technology 2200 mAh battery lives up to
it's expectations and puts some reality back into things. You get a
very high capacity battery at a very reasonable $22.00 US
In it's own right the ECell Gold 2430 mAh is a great idea for a cheap
and higher capacity replacement battery and that's really the positive
in that storyline.
The price is right for a slim replacement battery but they need to stop the gimmickry and advertise it for what it is.
I notice the French and British behavior recently. The French really believe in leisure but are very intelligent and productive people. They are better models for the world. The British and Germans are disciplined but do not enjoy life. 8 September 2013Last updated at 23:01 GMT
Every day the possibility of the US
and France leading military action against Syria edges closer. If it happens, it
will mark another twist in a long and complex relationship.
Barack Obama and Francois Hollande were the only two leaders at the G20
meeting in Moscow committed to using force against Syria.
They make a pretty unexpected coalition of the willing, when you remember the
American anti-French backlash over Iraq a decade ago, when french fries were off
the menu and French wine down the plug-hole.
But the image of the two presidents with fortunes entwined provides a neat
historical symmetry. After all, if it wasn't for France then George Washington
might today only be a name known to avid history students.
In 1778, a fledgling nation called the United States made its first alliance,
an event that many experts believe altered the course of its war of independence
with Britain.
In the late 1700s both countries used revolution to overthrow tyrants and
establish democracy, or a "social contract" - a popular catchphrase of the
day.
America's social contract was based on the ideas of the English philosopher
John Locke (left). Locke imagined a society that maximises
individual freedom. While we all agree that it's necessary to give up some
freedoms for the common good - like the "freedom" to steal or the "right" to
kill - Americans try to preserve the individual's freedom to pursue happiness.
For Locke, government is, at best, a necessary evil whose control over our lives
should be kept to the minimum.
The French social contract is different, requiring more individual
compromises for the common good. When Simone fills her Renault at le pump, she
pays more than twice for that gas than I do in America. And she does it
willingly, knowing the built-in gas tax will be used to maintain roads, design
the latest TGV bullet train, and pay city bus drivers.
France was influenced by the social contract of philosopher Jean
Jacques Rousseau (right). Stressing that man is, by nature, not a
rugged individualist but a social creature, he saw government as not merely a
necessary evil, but as the embodiment of the communal will.
Steve Smith, travel writer
The treaty signed by Francophile Benjamin Franklin in
Paris meant France recognised the United States as a sovereign nation and was
committed to the defence of its new ally. In effect, it brought France into the
war against its long-standing enemy, Britain.
"It was the first formal alliance for the US, this treaty of alliance and
friendship and it probably made the difference between victory and defeat," says
Gregory Urwin, a professor of history at Temple University in Philadelphia.
"They were already providing covert aid, shipping weapons and munitions to
Americans though front trading companies, but once they entered the war it
changed the entire dynamic because Britain could no longer count on mastery of
the sea."
Every American is taught about the famous victory at Yorktown and the heroics
of a dashing Frenchman, the Marquis de Lafayette, the young idealist who joined
the Americans before his country had even entered the war.
But it's another Frenchman, the Count of Rochambeau, who is the real French
hero, says Urwin, because as commander of the French forces he had a decisive
influence on Washington's triumph at Yorktown.
The friendship between the two nations didn't last long. France expected
American assistance in the wars that followed the French Revolution but
Washington was reluctant to get drawn into a European conflict in the 1790s and
chose neutrality, ignoring the terms of the treaty and sparking a quasi-war with
France.
But the mythology of Lafayette was set in stone in 1824 when the park
adjoining the White House on its northern side was renamed Lafayette Square, in
a city designed by another Frenchman, Pierre L'Enfant.
Lafayette was further immortalised in World War I when, on American
Independence Day in 1917, US troops paraded through Paris and stopped at his
tomb, where at his request he was buried in soil brought from the US. The shouts
of "Lafayette, we are here!" symbolised a country repaying its debt 140 years
later.
By then, the Statue of Liberty was already fast becoming one of New York
City's most visible landmarks. It was a gift from "the French people" in 1886
that expressed the two countries' shared values.
The second world war of the 20th Century offered another chance for American
soldiers to be warmly welcomed on French soil. In Normandy, the Stars and
Stripes can still be seen fluttering from homes on the anniversary of the D-Day
landings.
Supping lunchtime drinks in the Baltimore sunshine, yards from statues of
Washington and Lafayette (above), Declan Shaughnessy echoed the thoughts of
several present when he said the support of the French provided no consolation
for critics of intervention like himself. "If Russia and China were leading the
way, countries bigger than France, I might think differently."
"I thank the French," says Chuck Merton, who supports a military strike. "I
was never against the French over Iraq. The French are like us. They speak their
own mind and follow their own beliefs, and I don't blame them. Just because
we're the USA doesn't make us right all the time."
But there persisted a belief among some Americans that
the French were too ready to give up without a fight, a sentiment that entered
popular culture in a Simpsons episode in 1995 that characterised the French as
"cheese-eating surrender monkeys".
This phrase was further popularised on the eve of the Iraq War, when France
refused to support a US-led invasion, sparking a backlash against all things
Gallic.
The freedom fries episode came as a surprise to us, but we were vindicated by
history so it doesn't really matter and the joke was on them.
There was some sadness because we felt close to them.
Generally speaking, the French are not anti-American. There has been a
tradition of anti-Americanism among the left-leaning intelligentsia since the
Second World War but it's not shared by the wider public. We've always been
drawn to them culturally even though there have been some foreign policy
differences.
Charles de Gaulle wanted to stand independent from the US but French foreign
policy has been largely Atlanticist for the last eight years.
Syria won't have any bearing on how we feel about Americans - 68% of the
French are opposed to military action and that has nothing to do with the US and
everything to do with the way this policy has been conceived.
The most memorable expression of this came when a
restaurant in North Carolina, now closed, changed "french fries" to "freedom
fries" on its menu. Others followed, including the canteen at the
House of Representatives. The presidential plane Air Force One served
"stuffed freedom toast topped with strawberries," instead of the usual French
toast.
France was added to a new "Axis of Weasel" with Germany, by satirist Scott
Ott. After coining the phrase in his blog, it was on the front page of the New
York Post two days later.
But Ott doesn't believe a joint operation against Syria will mark a new love
affair with France. On Iraq and on Syria, the French have been on the wrong side
of the argument, he says.
"So France will find itself against American public opinion again," he says,
adding that he loves France but makes a distinction between its government and
country.
French fries were soon back on the menu but many Americans were embarrassed
by the headlines it generated around the world.
"Iraq was a ridiculous over-reaction to what could be considered a rational
response by the French government and French people," says Steve Smith, an
American who writes about France for Rick Steves' guidebooks.
American tourism to France dropped, he says, either because Americans were
angry with the French or embarrassed. Some that did visit pretended they were
Canadian. "There was a huge drop in business. The number of tours to the country
and guide books sold fell off the table, although it recovered years later."
He thinks Americans love France but don't really understand the French.
"There's such a fundamental difference in outlook. The French are driven not by
how much money you make but what's on the menu for dinner tonight and what you
are reading."
Americans will ask early on what do you do for a living but the French won't,
he says. And an American suspicion that French people are lazy exists because
the French are more appreciative of leisure time.
"They also expect more from government. The French are more willing to
sacrifice the rights of the individual for the good of the community."
American artists and writers have long been drawn to Paris
Henry James and James Fenimore Cooper fell for its charms in 19th
Century
A later wave included F Scott Fitzgerald, Ford Madox Ford, Ernest
Hemingway and Gertrude Stein
After the war, came Allen Ginsberg, William Burroughs,
James Baldwin
"We always returned to it no matter who we were or how it was changed or
with what difficulties or ease it could be reached. Paris was always worth it,"
said Hemingway
The French played a leading role in Libya but it's the
prospect of the two nations standing shoulder to shoulder on Syria that has
ministers gushing.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has talked fondly of the nation's "oldest
ally" and spoke French as he made the case for military action while in Paris.
One security analyst in Washington said: "We're all over here learning French,
saying 'Vive la France!' That's the new thing."
The rapprochement between the two leaders over Syria will matter to public
perceptions, says Smith, because Americans love it when other people are on
their side.
"I feel it, listening to Hollande's words on the radio. And I think the
average American is listening and will pay attention."
The man who took french fries off the menu at the House of of Representatives
says it's ironic that the French are now leading the charge.
"What a turnaround," says former Congressman Bob Ney, who maintains that what
he did was a gesture to the troops in response to the heated anti-Americanism
coming out of Paris at the time.
And then, with a joking reference to the British, he adds: "Maybe we will
have to ban fish and chips now."
We, Muslims, only say Allahu Akbar when we expect miracles. God help us in invisible ways.
We, Muslims will only say, Alhamdulillah, after we have worked hard,
and we are successful. Although we work hard, we still cannot attribute
it to our own efforts at all.
Allahu Akbar means just Allah is great,
never greater or even greatest.
It will be utterly stupid to say Allah is greatest when we see and expect miracles.
Not that I think Allah is not the greatest even without the adjective greatest.
And Allah is greatest, not only to Muslims but also to non-Muslims
as well i.e. followers of Moses and Isa, which are the Jews and
Christians, but only the true ones.
We are all taught this way in sermons, even for those who do not go
to Islamic schools. Of course there are the conditionals "only the true
ones" but this apply to Muslims as well. Only true Muslims will go to
heaven.
Can you find any religion that allow other religion or followers of other prophets to go to heaven? None at all.
This kind of stupid interpretations by non-Muslims is just preposterous and filled with dishonest and intolerable intentions.
Just like the translation of La Ilah Ha Illahah as a thanking to god
in one of the Egyption pilot's airplane disaster. Muslims say it when
we are dying, not to thank god, but to affirm the belief in the ONE GOD,
the last time. To translate it to mean thanking is just preposterous
and dishonest.
"Like it, Allahu Akbar has clear hostile religious overtones. It’s
used to denote the religious supremacism that is the fundamental mission
of Islam."
This is just utter nonsense. Since I was a child, I was told that
the final saviour of Muslims will be isa, the prophet of the Christians,
and you call that religious supremism.
Muslims are also taught that true Jews and Christians will go to
heaven and so are many other groups who believe in monotheism, and this
is never taught in any religion at all, ONLY ISLAM. And you call Islam, a
religious supremism? Judaism is the worst in this respect. They think
that they are the only chosen people. Even Jesus despised this view as
documented by the New testaments.
No John, “Allah Akbar” Does Not Mean “Thank God” and It Matters
September 3, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield 57 Comments
?
Print This Post Print This Post
27342
What’s in a word?
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) blasted Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade on
Tuesday for questioning members of a Syrian opposition groups’ use of
the phrase “Allahu Akbar” after what Kilmeade said “looks like a fighter
jet being shot out of the sky.”
“I have a problem helping those people screaming that after a hit,” Kilmeade said.
McCain criticized Kilmeade for his skepticism of the phrase,
which means “God is greater” or “God is the greatest” in Arabic.
“Would you have a problem with an American person saying ‘Thank
God? Thank God?’” McCain said. “That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of
course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they
are moderates.”
They’re not saying Thank God. They’re not even saying Thank Allah.
If they wanted to praise Allah for surviving, they would say
“Alhamdulillah”.
The difference is significant. Allah Akbar is a proclamation of
Islamic superiority in line with its Koranic mission of making Islam
superior over all religions.
Koran 61:9. “He it is who has sent his Messenger with guidance and
the religion of truth to make it victorious over all religions even
though the infidels may resist.”
It’s not merely a praise of their deity, Allah. It’s a mission statement.
“We killed this man. This proves that our god is greater than his.”
McCain is being willfully ignorant when he conflates Thank God with Allahu Akbar.
The origin of Allah Akbar, which does not appear in the Koran, comes from the Hadith, during Mohammed’s genocide of the Jews.
“So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and
spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, “Muhammad and his army!”
The Prophet said, Allahu–Akbar! (Allah is Greater) and Khaibar is
ruined, for whenever we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then it
will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned.” Sahih
Bukhari 4:52:195
Khaybar, Khaybar Ya Yahud Jash Muhammad Saya’ud, Khaybar, Khaybar, O
Jews, Mohammed’s Army Will Return is still used as an anti-Semitic
battle cry by Muslims today.
Like it, Allahu Akbar has clear hostile religious overtones. It’s
used to denote the religious supremacism that is the fundamental mission
of Islam.
Until Senator McCain gets that, he’s as clueless as any of the 1920s
politicians who pretended that the Bolsheviks were just a bunch of
social reformers.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/no-john-allah-akbar-does-not-mean-thank-god-and-it-matters/
GOD in Arabic is ILAH, the additional A is just the article THE in Arabic.
GOD in Malay is TUHAN, Allah is interpreted in Malay just as in Arabic, the special god.
Just because there is a word ALLAH existing in other languages does
not give you the right to mistranslate it opposite meanings. Would you
like me to call you a bastard person, but to mean it as honourable
person.
GOD and THE GOD are two very opposite meanings. It is particularly
insulting to Muslims who pray 5 times a day, saying these two words,
more than 10 times per day, to have these words mistranslated and
explained to other people as having the opposite in meanings.
In Arabic it is called: LA ILAH HA ILL ALLAH.
Translated in Malay in becomes, NO GOD BUT THE GOD.
There is no conflict in meaning at all with non Muslim Arabs in
using ALLAH because they also use ILAH to mean gods but reserving Allah
to the special god.
To downgrade ALLAH to just GOD, is downright insulting and blatantly lying.
You have no right to misinterpret words which means that you lie.
Freedom of speech does not equate to the freedom to lie, even in
private. You cannot even teach yourself to lie by using translating GOD
to ALLAH in Malay, instead of TUHAN which is the correct Malay word for
GOD. Translating GOD to ALLAH is both wrong either in Arabic or Malay.
Just because there is a word BASTARD, does not mean that I can call
you a BASTARD, but pretending it to mean HONOURABLE especially by non
Malay and non Malay habitual speaker, like this Bob Teoh and Catholic
translators, who insist that GOD means ALLAH, not TUHAN. What right have
you to misinterpret the Malay language.
Because there is a very strong case for people to misuse words as
clearly shown in the present case, articulated by the article below,
then it is right to the Malays especially the Muslim authorities to
control the use of words especially in Malay so that people will not be
lied to, not even in private.
Do you like people to talk bad about youself, even though it is done in private?
LORD in Malay is also translated as TUAN, not TUHAN. It is absurd to any Malay that LORD can ever be translated as TUHAN and preposterous. Another attempt at lying is very clear here.
So LORD GOD, can easily be translated to TUAN TUHAN, and any stupid person can immediately see that this is the correct translation, instead of TUHAN TUHAN, which this Bob Teoh keep on insisting.
If you are that stupid, let me explain clearly the original words which are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WHICH IS "LORD" and "GOD", how can it ever be translated into "TUHAN" "TUHAN" which are exactly the same words. Different words need to be translated into different words, as simple as that, you idiot.
Translating LORD GOD in English to TUHAN TUHAN in Malay, is BEYOND STUPIDITY. This cannot be tolerated at all.
Side Views
The Allah case at a glance: Part 2 - Bob Teoh
September 07, 2013
Latest Update: September 07, 2013 08:02 pm
Allah is just a word in the Semitic languages to refer to the
English word God. Languages like Malay borrow this word from Arabic.
Thus, whether it is in the Malay language Qur'an or the Malay language
Bible, or Alkitab as it is known, the word for God is Allah.
But it is more than just a word. The government and the religious
establishment are perceived by non-Muslims, especially Christians, as
taking all available means to stop them from using this word. This makes
Malaysia the only Muslim-majority country to make it an offence for
non-Muslims to use the Allah word as well as a slew of other common
Arabic words like doa (pray), iman (faith), and nabi (prophet).
Allah is a shared word among People of the Book, a centuries-old
common heritage. Only in Malaysia do we refuse to understand this.
But, as the Kuala Lumpur High Court judgment on the Herald case
pointed out, the battle over the Allah word is not about Islam as the
religion of the Federation or the Sultans' authority over it but whether
the government can lawfully prohibit non-Muslims from using the Allah
word.
Writing on his blog following the Herald judgment and subsequent
fire-bombing of churches, Dr Mahathir Mohamad said, “This controversy
actually began when I was prime minister. The Cabinet at the time held
the opinion that its use in the Bible is a sensitive matter. Sensitive
matters such as this cannot be resolved by simply referring to the law.”
According to the Herald judgment, “A mere statement by the Home
Minister that the exercise of power was necessary on the ground of
national security without adequate supporting evidence is not sufficient
in law.”
Mahathir also sees a hidden Christian agenda for wanting to use the Allah word.
“Perhaps the word Allah is to equate Christianity with Islam so it
is the worship of the same God. With this, acceptance of Christianity by
Muslims can be so much easier. This translation is incorrect. In fact,
the word Tuhan should be used for God.”
Like Mahathir, others have also suggested that Christians should use
Tuhan to refer to God. However, this is flawed advice. The Bible often
refers to God, especially in the Old Testament as the LORD God. In other
words, this would have to be translated as Tuhan Tuhan. Not only will
this sound silly, it is also bad grammar.
In Malay, a repetition of a noun renders in from a singular to a
plural. In other words, Christians worship many gods; making it into a
polytheistic religion; God forbid, nothing can be further from the
truth. Let there be no confusion over this. The Bible is explicitly
clear on the one-ness of God. This is clear in the Old Testament book of
Deuteronomy 6:4 and in the New Testament Gospel of Mark 12:29.
The fear of conversion out of Islam, especially to Christianity, is
understandable. But the hysteria whipped up by the religious
establishment and the ultra right-wing is wholly unsubstantiated. The
fact remains that the opposite appears to be true.
In Sabah alone there were 117,579 conversions to Islam from 1970 to 2009, according to official statistics.
Yet lies are repeatedly spread about massive conversions of Muslims
to Christianity. Take for instance, the Mufti of Perak. His allegations
have even riled some Muslims to the extent that the Sisters in Islam was
prompted to issue a press statement on 6 November 2006 to refute his
allegations.
It would not be right to put all the blame on Dr Mahathir. He was
not the only Prime Minister to ban an indigenous language Bible. His
successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, banned the Bup Kudus, the Iban Bible,
while in his capacity as acting Prime Minister and Home Affairs
Minister. According to a research paper by Tsunashima-Miyake, Ikuko in
early 2003, the ban was imposed on the Iban Bible by the Ministry of
Home Affairs but was withdrawn within two months.
Indeed, the problem will continue to persist. But the government
knows and has the answer. It only needs the political will and goodwill
to put matters to rest. All 14 component parties of the ruling Barisan
Nasional coalition except one have distanced themselves from this highly
divisive and irregular policy.
There is no reason for one party to hold the whole nation to ransom
any longer. Thirty-three years is long enough for people of other faiths
to carry this cross. The present generation of believers don't even
know the genesis of this plague but they inherit the pain all the same.
It is time to bury past mistakes. It is time to bring forth
reconciliation. Therein lies the redemption of our nation. - mysinchew.com, September 7, 2013
* This is an extract from Allah – More Than A Word (2010 Zomiky Media) used with permission.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does
not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/the-allah-case-at-a-glance-part-2-bob-teoh
Notes by Dr. Optoglass: The Resolution of the Human Eye
Topics Covered:
The average and maximum resolutions of the human eye
PPI and DPI at various distances
Beauty is all very well at first sight; but who ever looks at it when it has been in the house three days? – George Bernard Shaw
As we have seen earlier, the average visual acuity of the human eye is one arc minute. The maximum possible is 0.4 arc minutes. It would be a very rare human indeed who can beat 0.4 arc minutes!
Therefore, we can safely say that the average resolution of a good eye is between 0.4 and 1 arc minute. Before these figures can be translated to pixels or displays, one needs to realize that the size of the pixel will vary with distance.
What’s the formula?
where
d is the distance in mm
α is the angle in degrees
A very young child can focus at about 2 inches, but the average adult can focus no closer than 4 inches (100 mm). We can assume the lowest value of d to be 100 mm. At this distance, the pixel/dot size p is 0.0116 mm or 11.6 microns – for 0.4 arc minutes. For 1 arc minute, it works out to be 29 microns.
An inch is 25.4mm. So how many of our pixels can fit into an inch? @0.4 arc minutes, it is 2190 ppi (dpi). @1 arc minute, it is 876 ppi (dpi)
Maximum Resolution of the Eye
So this is how it is. If a healthy adult brings any display screen or printed paper or whatever 4 inches (100 mm) from his or her face, the maximum resolution he/she can see at is 2190 ppi/dpi. It doesn’t get any better than this for 99.99% of us, except maybe during pre-kindergarten years.
But the legally accepted norm of 20/20 vision only asks for 876 ppi/dpi at 4 inches!
Let’s have some fun:
Magazines and Fine Art Prints
If the average reading distance is 1 foot (12 inches = 305 mm), p @0.4 arc minute is 35.5 microns or about 720 ppi/dpi. p @1 arc minute is 89 microns or about 300 dpi/ppi. This is why magazines are printed at 300 dpi – it’s good enough for most people. Fine art printers aim for 720, and that’s the best it need be. Very few people stick their heads closer than 1 foot away from a painting or photograph.
Computer Monitors
The average computer monitor viewing distance is about 2.5 feet (762 mm). p@0.4 is 89 microns or about 300 ppi/dpi. p@1 is 222 microns or about 115 ppi/dpi. Now you can understand why most consumer computer monitors are about 100 ppi, and most professional computer monitors are slightly higher, but not by much.
The new iPad (3) has a resolution of 264 ppi, which isn’t as good as 300 dpi print but is much better than the average computer monitor. The new Eizo 36.4″ professional air traffic control 4K monitor is at 128 ppi.
Home television
Assuming the average viewing distance for television is 6 feet (1830 mm), p@0.4 is about 120 ppi and p@1 is about 50 ppi.
Most consumer large screen LCD and LED panels are about 50 ppi to 90 ppi, and average about 72 ppi. Now you know why. If your television gets smaller in size, then the higher ppi doesn’t really help. This is why 1920×1080 (at 100 ppi at 6 feet for a 50″ LCD/LED television panel) is good enough. The eye can’t really resolve a lot more at 6 feet.
Cinema
The width of a cinema screen can vary from 30 to 70 feet (360″ to 840″, 9144 mm to 21,336 mm). The closest viewing distance recommended is about 40 feet (3x height) – 12,192 mm. If one is projecting 2K on these screens, the ppi is about 2.4 ppi to 5.7 ppi. If one is projecting 4K, it is about 5 ppi to 11.4 ppi.
Is this what the eye needs?
p@0.4 works out to be 1.4 mm or 18 ppi.
p@1 works out to be 3.5 mm or 7 ppi.
As you can see, 4K comes very close to what the human eye can fully resolve in a cinema screen at average viewing distances. Obviously, many people sit in the front row, and they’d definitely appreciate higher resolution. Which is why we are moving towards:
8K and UHDTV
A 30 to 70 feet screen at 8K (8192 horizontal) gives me from 9.75 ppi to 22.8 ppi. This resolution beats what the eye can resolve at these distances. The future belongs to 8K.
But, to get 18 ppi (the best possible resolution) for a 70 feet screen, we’ll need a horizontal resolution of 15120 or 16K. This is about 128 Megapixels. Is anybody working on this?
IMAX film is supposed to resolve between 10K to 12K (theoretical maximum)
The Phase One IQ180 digital back is 80 Megapixels.
The Red camera company did announce a 28K camera!
This is as good as it gets in 2012.
Takeaways:
The maximum visual acuity of the human eye is 0.4 arc minutes.
At 4 inches, the maximum the human eye needs is 2190 ppi/dpi.
Next: Airy Disk and Pixel Density of the Eye
Previous: Focal Lengths of the Human Eye
If this primer helped you, please buy me a
Please share this primer with your friends:
Related posts:
Notes by Dr. Optoglass: Focal Lengths of the Human Eye
Notes by Dr. Optoglass: Eye Geometry
Notes by Dr. Optoglass: Angle of View and Aspect Ratio
Notes by Dr. Optoglass: The Human Eye – Part II
Notes by Dr. Optoglass: The Human Eye – Part III
July 21, 2012
2 comments
Sign in4
Post comment
Newest | Oldest
Vimal Gopal Apr 11, 2013
Under the "Home Television" section, you mentioned that a 1920x1080, 50" display is 100 dpi. But, according to pxcalc.com, that combination only gets you to 38.4 dpi. How are you getting 100 dpi?? Thanks.
LikeReply
Sareesh Sudhakaran moderatorApr 11, 2013
@Vimal Gopal The formula is available, Vimal. What results are you getting?
LikeReply
Trackbacks
Too many Pixels? |SamMobile says:
February 17, 2013 at 1:01 am
[...] with perfect 20/20 vision would theoretically be able to see individual pixels at a density of 2190ppi on a screen just 4” (~100mm) from their eyes, and for the average person with 20/20 vision, it’s about 876ppi. The [...]
Too many Pixels? | The Smartphone World says:
February 17, 2013 at 8:25 pm
[...] with perfect 20/20 vision would theoretically be able to see individual pixels at a density of 2190ppi on a screen just 4” (~100mm) from their eyes, and for the average person with 20/20 vision, it’s about 876ppi. The [...]
MICROSOFT SURPRISED NO ONE on
Tuesday when it announced that it picked up Nokia's devices unit and
licensed some of its software for a cool £4.6bn in cash. While many see
the deal as two struggling companies merging for a final shot at
success, we think the deal should have Apple and Google worried.
First off, Nokia pretty much is Windows Phone. Ask somebody
in the street to name a Windows Phone maker and they're unlikely to
mention Samsung or HTC, with the Finnish phone firm accounting for
around 85 percent of Windows Phone handsets sold and its Nokia Lumia 520
smartphone ranking as the best selling phone running the Microsoft
mobile operating system yet. With Microsoft taking Nokia under its wing,
it's hard to see Samsung, HTC or even Huawei or ZTE continuing to
develop Windows Phone devices, despite Microsoft claiming that the deal
will "help the market" for its other OEM partners.
This could be a worry for Google. When the firm bought handset maker
Motorola last year, Google reassured Android OEMs that it would not
favour the company in any way. However, after Microsoft's buyout of
Nokia, perhaps other Windows Phone makers can't feel quite so assured.
So why is this bad for Google? Samsung and HTC are unlikely to want
to rely on only the Android mobile operating system, and could avoid
throwing all of their eggs into one basket by branching out elsewhere.
This, for example, could see Samsung focusing more heavily on its Tizen
mobile operating system and distancing itself from Android somewhat,
which could spell bad news for the Android ecosystem, given that the
firm accounts for 95 percent of profits in the Android smartphone market.
There have been some rumours recently that HTC could be planning to
launch its own mobile operating system, and Microsoft's acquisition of
Nokia devices could see the firm looking to focus on this to avoid
reliance on Android.
That's not the only reason Google should be worried, and Apple should
be too, as the buyout finally sees Windows Phone becoming an exciting
third player in the smartphone market, looking to end the duopoly
currently held by iOS and Android. The pairing of the two companies
might be just what Microsoft's mobile operating system needs to extend
its reach beyond the present 9.2 percent marketshare it holds in the UK. In fact, Microsoft has already said that it wants to see its market share triple by 2018 following its purchase of Nokia.
The deal sees Microsoft taking back control of the Windows Phone
market, with Steve Ballmer already voicing that he wants to use the
buyout to boost the number of big-name apps in the Windows Store,
including apps like Instagram. Up until now, apps have been Windows
Phone 8's main downfall. We've long praised the Windows Phone interface
as one of the best on the mobile market and we've rarely had complaints
relating to Nokia's hardware, so if Microsoft can stick to its promise
here it could see Windows Phone getting a lot more competitive in the
apps market.
In fact, we could go on. There are a number of factors that should
have Google and Apple worried: Nokia bringing its distribution reach to
Microsoft, the amount of money Microsoft can pump into Nokia, and the
fact that Microsoft now owns Nokia's extensive patent portfolio, which
could see Microsoft going after its rivals in other ways.
Today's deal also effectively writes off Blackberry as a major player
in the smartphone market, as Microsoft picking up Nokia sees the firm
combining the Finnish firm's hardware division with its software and is
likely to make Microsoft the number one choice in the enterprise market.
Of course, we could also list many risks that both Microsoft and
Nokia face, and Stephen Elop said on Tuesday that there is both
"ambiguity and concern" among employees because neither firm knows what
the future holds.
Done right, however, the future could present a shot at success in the mobile market for both companies. µ
Several new versions of the flu vaccine are debuting this year —
more powerful, more protective, even a version for those with egg
allergies — but they are so new they are not yet widely available.
Health
experts, however, say you still will be able to get the traditional flu
shot this year, which you should if you are at least 6 months old.
The
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the state
Department of Health both are urging people to get a flu shot as soon as
it's available.
"It's not too early to get it," said Dr. Carrie DeLone, the state's physician general.
Pharmacies
are now giving the shot, as are local physician offices. Hospitals will
start to vaccinate employees next month, and the state health
department is rolling out its clinics.
Limited supplies of the new types of flu vaccines will be available locally, including:
n A high-dose vaccine for people age 65 and older.
The
new vaccine contains additional amounts of vaccine that stimulate the
production of antibodies to marshal a stronger defense against the flu
in the elderly, who are the most at risk for a severe illness or death
from the flu.
n A quadrivalent form of the vaccine, which protects against two A strains of flu and two B strains of flu.
Traditional
flu vaccines are trivalent, protecting against two A strains and one B
strain. It is the A strain that causes severe illness, but the B strain
also can sicken people.
n An egg-free version of the vaccine.
Up until now, people who were allergic to eggs could not get a flu vaccine because the vaccine is made using eggs.
Local
hospitals say they will not be offering the high-dose or quadrivalent
forms of the vaccine on a wide basis. The two new versions were not
available when they ordered their vaccines in the spring.
State
health department clinics will offer the quadrivalent vaccine, in both a
nasal spray version and an injectable version. But only about 115,000
of the quadrivalent vaccines will be available, compared to about
400,000 of the trivalent vaccines.
DeLone said the CDC does not
recommend the quadrivalent vaccine for any particular type of patient so
whoever can get it, and wants it, can take it.
People who are uninsured or underinsured and are looking for a flu shot at a state health clinic can call 1-877-PA HEALTH.
At
pharmacies, the quadrivalent vaccine is available on a limited basis,
and will cost about $10 more than the trivalent version.
Pharmacies also are offering the high-dose vaccine for the 65-and-over crowd.
Some
soon-to-be-published reports show that the high-dose vaccine does
appear to be effective among senior citizens, said Dr. Neil A. Greene,
chief of the infectious disease division at Lancaster General Hospital.
If the high-dose vaccine continues to prove to be effective, it likely will become more widely available next year, he said.
While
nobody knows how bad the upcoming flu season will be, last year's
outbreak still is fresh in the minds of many local caregivers.
The worst season in at least a decade, the 2012-13 flu killed 10 people here and sickened more than 1,800.
"After
last year, I think more people will be willing to roll their sleeve
up," said Peg Holland, infection control coordinator at Ephrata
Community Hospital. "It was rough."
Last year, LGH required its employees to get the flu vaccine to protect its patients and staff. Ephrata is doing so this year.
Heart
of Lancaster and Lancaster Regional Medical Centers do not require
their employees to get the shot. But they do require them to a submit a
reason if they do not get the vaccine, and to wear a mask around
patients and other employees during flu season, said Marla Konas,
infection control nurse.
Even employees with an egg allergy may
not have an iron-clad reason not to get the shot anymore, as this year a
new egg-free shot became available.
Egg allergies are rare —
only 20 to 30 people out of the 8,000 or so Lancaster General Health
employees last year got deferments for the allergy, Greene said.
In
addition to getting vaccinated, you can do other things to protect
yourself from contracting or spreading the flu, DeLone said.
Wash
your hands often. Cover your mouth when you cough. Don't go to work or
send your children to school if flu symptoms develop.
And if you
do develop the flu, get to your physician as soon as possible for
anti-viral medications, which can lessen the severity of the illness,
Greene said.
Assad allegedly hiding troops, weapons among civilians
Two
young Syrian soldiers ride a motorcycle past a huge poster bearing a
portrait of President Bashar al-Assad next to a painting of a Syria's
national flag in the Christian town of Marmarita in the central Homs
region, about 200 kms northwest of the capital Damascus, on August 19,
2013. /Getty Images
BEIRUT As the Obama administration tries to prod Congress into backing armed action against Syria, the regime in Damascus is hiding military hardware and shifting troops out of bases into civilian areas.
Politically, President Bashar Assad has gone on the offensive, warning in a rare interview with Western media that any military action against Syria could spark a regional war.
If the U.S. opts for missile strikes, Assad's reaction could have a major effect on the trajectory of Syria's civil war.
Neighboring countries could get dragged into a wider conflict, or it
could be back to business as usual for a crisis that has claimed the
lives of more than 100,000 people over 2.5 years.
The
main Western-backed opposition group says that during the buildup last
week to what seemed like an imminent U.S. attack, the army moved troops
as well as rocket launchers, artillery and other heavy weapons into
residential neighborhoods in cities nationwide. Three Damascus
residents, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals,
confirmed such movements.
One man said two members of the
elite Republican Guards broke into an empty house he owns and showed
him an official document stating they were authorized to do so because
Syria is at war. A woman in another area said soldiers moved into a
school next to her house.
That trend is likely to continue in the coming days after the regime won a reprieve following President Barack Obama's decision to seek congressional approval for military action.
"The
Syrian regime knows there are 30-40 potential targets for U.S.
airstrikes, and they have had ample time to prepare," said Hisham Jaber,
a retired Lebanese army general and director of the Middle East Center
for Studies and Political Research in Beirut. "Half of them, if not
more, have been evacuated, moved or camouflaged. This is the natural
thing to do."
Obama said last week that he believes the U.S. should strike Syria for what the administration says was a deadly chemical weapons attack by Assad's forces
on rebel-held suburbs of Damascus. The administration has stressed,
however, that any operation would be limited and not aimed at tipping
the balance of power in Syria's civil war.
In an
interview published Monday with the French newspaper Le Figaro, Assad
refused to say how Syria would respond to Western strikes, but warned
that "the risk of a regional war exists."
The regime has a
range of options if the U.S. does bomb. It could retaliate with rockets
against U.S. allies in the region. It could unleash allies like
Hezbollah against Western targets abroad. Or it could do nothing — and
score propaganda points by portraying itself as victim of U.S.
aggression.
Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad told CBS News' Elizabeth Palmer over the weekend the regime could use all options if the U.S. attacks, and that the "Middle East will be on fire."
"We
have an army, we have our people, we have our capabilities, we have our
friends, and all these means will be used to stop such an aggression,"
said Mekdad, adding the U.S. "cannot control what will happen" in the
aftermath of an attack.
The regime's choice, analysts
say, will probably depend on the magnitude of the American military
action: The bigger and more sustained the strikes, the more likely the
government in Damascus will feel compelled to respond.
If Washington follows through with calibrated strikes, analysts say, Assad may reach for a political card, not a military one.
"His
first option is propaganda value," said Salman Shaikh, director of the
Brookings Doha Center. Assad could try to foster the notion "that the
West is again attacking a Middle Eastern state, an Arab state, without
the right international legitimacy. And he can bolster that dynamic,
that narrative, by showing that it's had a cost on innocent civilians."
One way to achieve that would be to show the world images of civilians purportedly killed by American strikes.
"If
he's able to score points from this, he will feel that he's actually
won without actually engaging in a military response," Shaikh said.
Assad charted a similar course after Israeli airstrikes in May
that targeted advanced weapons destined for Lebanon's Shiite militant
group Hezbollah. His regime portrayed the attacks as proof of the
rebels' collusion with Israel, denounced the strikes as a violation of
Syrian sovereignty and dispatched an obscure militant group to threaten
retaliation.
In terms of military responses, Assad could
launch rockets at U.S. allies Turkey, Jordan or Israel. But that could
touch off a prolonged military engagement with an outside power at a
time when the regime is already in a bloody fight for its survival.
An
attack against NATO-member Turkey could trigger a response from the
entire military alliance, while Jordan hosts about a dozen U.S. F-16
jets, a Patriot missile battery and around 1,000 American troops.
As
for Israel, the Assad regime could launch rockets at the Jewish state,
or turn to Hezbollah to do so. The militant group, which fought Israel
to a standstill in a 34-day war in 2006, is believed to have a
well-stocked arsenal of missiles capable of hitting the country's major
cities. While Iran has directly threatened to strike at Israel should
the U.S. attack Syria, the Assad regime has been noncommittal about what
would happen in regards to the Jewish state.
But
analysts say Syria is unlikely to pursue an aggressive course against
Israel unless the U.S. strikes pose an immediate threat to Assad's grip
on power.
Hezbollah would have a lot to lose. The group
is already facing flak at home for fighting alongside Syrian government
troops against the rebels. A full-on confrontation with Israel on behalf
of Syria would probably be a tough sell to its Shiite constituents at
home, let alone the broader Lebanese public.
"I can't see
a situation whereby they would accept an order from Assad to, say,
attack Israel or attack some domestic enemies. I think that would be too
damaging for their position," said Chris Phillips, a Syria specialist
at Queen Mary University in London.
Israeli defense
officials also say the odds of retaliation by Syria or Hezbollah are
very low. Still, Israel has deployed Iron Dome anti-missile batteries in
the Tel Aviv area and toward its northern frontier with Syria.
Between
these two extremes lies a middle path for Assad, which would involve an
attack such as a car bombing carried out by a sympathetic militant
group.
"Something to indicate to the outside world that
it's dangerous to mess with the Assad regime, that they have levers that
can cause damage elsewhere, while also plausibly denying that they've
had direct impact," Phillips said.
As an example,
Phillips pointed to a double car bombing earlier this year in Turkey
that killed more than 50 people. Turkey blames Syria, while Syria denies
any role.
[BATTERY REVIEW] ECell Gold 2430 mAh Lithium Polymer Battery
In the late 1700s both countries used revolution to overthrow tyrants and
establish democracy, or a "social contract" - a popular catchphrase of the
day.
