Posts
I've grown addicted to the sensation of realizing how much there is I don't know. Let me give you some metaphors.
It's like origami- you start with a plain piece of paper, but as soon as you start in on folding it, it becomes a million different things.
Any way you turn, you can dive down as far as you care to snorkel.
This is why I can never learn anything about wine - there are so many categories, and subcategories, and trained wine tasters can't even give consistent answers about the subject.
God, I just want to hook my brain up to Wikipedia and go from there.
Showing posts with label rambling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rambling. Show all posts
Monday, January 31, 2011
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
RCA, RFU, Stereo AV, S-Video, Component Video...
What the crap, you guys. So I have this big old TV, like 27" maybe, but all it has on the back is a coax port - or RF maybe? Whatever, the round one where it doesn't matter which way you put the cable on it. I also have a PS2, which is my DVD player.
About half my DVDs make a horrifying buzzing noise some or all of the time they are playing; most often when there are subtitles on the screen, but not only then. For example, it wouldn't let me watch Sense and Sensibility last night.
The guy at Radio Shack was super nice and very helpful, but they didn't have any of the bits I needed. He suggested buying a new PS2 cable, and if that didn't help, to ground the cable by putting a wire from the connector into the tv to a ground in a wall socket or a cold water pipe. As exciting as that sounds, I'm not an electrician.
So I went to Best Buy with the intention of purchasing cables such that the picture could go to the TV while the audio goes to my stereo, which has much better sound quality anyway. The advice I got was to get an RFU converter and a PS2 cable with Stero AV or S-Video connectors, then also a coax cable to go from the RFU converter to the TV and more red and white cables, whatever they're called, to go from the RFU converter to the stereo. All in all, a $65 investment at Best Buy.
My shitty old TV is not worth $60. I'm going to buy a $35 TV on craigslist that has component video ports and buy a new PS2 cable to match for $20. Then for $55 I have a better TV AND better sound.
But will it fix the buzzing? Now that is the real question.
And let me take this opportunity to extend a special "thank you" to this IGN article from 2000 about the different PS2 cable options.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Nanotechnology
I had no idea nanotech was so far along! The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology is admittedly not exactly an unbiased source, but they predict workable molecular manufacturing in the next twenty years.
This sort of thing freaks me out, in my gut where I can't reason with it. A side effect of too much science fiction? But often the best way to deal with that feeling is to move in closer until I understand it and can deal with it, instead of living with the low-grade worry that comes standard. Cory Doctorow is excellent at thinking about these problems in human terms, as in the story After the Siege (scroll down to view a selection of formats for downloading purposes).
I want to go to space. Perhaps I could get there through a combination of architecture and nanotech expertise. I wonder how many years of intense schooling I would need for that? Two years for the architecture, perhaps. Three for the physics/engineering/chemistry necessary for nanotech research? Some of the necessary math and engineering may overlap, and I'm sure many courses could be taken simultaneously. On the other hand, this sample engineering major requirement list indicates a need for a minimum of three or four years of high school science classes including physics and chemistry, in addition to college math through Calculus and Calculus-based Physics. So probably I would need at least a year of intensive preparatory classes in addition to the five of real classes. Hmm.
Designing structures for humans to live in space using nanotech would be interesting, and important, and maybe even useful. Maybe I wouldn't feel so much like I'm wasting my time. The kind of materials engineering possible through nanotech might be able to mitigate the radiation hazards and seriously reduce the mass of vehicles and cargoes going into space, thus decreasing fuel needs and making the undertaking cheaper all around. Although it occurs to me that for example a nanotech air filtration system would be much more difficult to repair on the fly than a traditional mechanical one. Or would it? A personal nanofactory might be able to churn one out in seconds.
The last thing I need to hear is that this is too ambitious. But is it ambitious in the right direction?
This sort of thing freaks me out, in my gut where I can't reason with it. A side effect of too much science fiction? But often the best way to deal with that feeling is to move in closer until I understand it and can deal with it, instead of living with the low-grade worry that comes standard. Cory Doctorow is excellent at thinking about these problems in human terms, as in the story After the Siege (scroll down to view a selection of formats for downloading purposes).
I want to go to space. Perhaps I could get there through a combination of architecture and nanotech expertise. I wonder how many years of intense schooling I would need for that? Two years for the architecture, perhaps. Three for the physics/engineering/chemistry necessary for nanotech research? Some of the necessary math and engineering may overlap, and I'm sure many courses could be taken simultaneously. On the other hand, this sample engineering major requirement list indicates a need for a minimum of three or four years of high school science classes including physics and chemistry, in addition to college math through Calculus and Calculus-based Physics. So probably I would need at least a year of intensive preparatory classes in addition to the five of real classes. Hmm.
Designing structures for humans to live in space using nanotech would be interesting, and important, and maybe even useful. Maybe I wouldn't feel so much like I'm wasting my time. The kind of materials engineering possible through nanotech might be able to mitigate the radiation hazards and seriously reduce the mass of vehicles and cargoes going into space, thus decreasing fuel needs and making the undertaking cheaper all around. Although it occurs to me that for example a nanotech air filtration system would be much more difficult to repair on the fly than a traditional mechanical one. Or would it? A personal nanofactory might be able to churn one out in seconds.
The last thing I need to hear is that this is too ambitious. But is it ambitious in the right direction?
Monday, August 17, 2009
Dying Detroit
I'm a little late to the "OMFG Detroit is doomed!" party, but I just saw this map of how much Detroit has shrunk (via Quiet Babylon). I knew the city was in trouble, but I had no idea it was this bad.
Do I get to have an opinion about a city I've never visited? It seems reasonable to me to bulldoze the outlying regions and concentrate everybody in a more reasonably-sized area. I think a lot of cities could benefit from razing suburbs, actually, even in mostly-healthy areas - suburban sprawl is contributing to many of our social and ecological problems.
But what about the people still living in those areas of Detroit? There are some, according to the maps. Do they want to keep living where they are, or would they rather be consolidated? Many (or most?) of the people still living there are desperately poor, too poor to relocate or perfectly content squatting rent-free where they are. Does that change the value of their opinions?
I'm glad the town I live in is doing pretty well. There's a growing amount of empty retail space but the downtown is still busy and there's a growing area out by the highway. I've been wanting to break out of the status quo of my awful job for a while now, but I'm terrified that I won't be able to find another one, or at least not another one with health insurance. Reading about a place like Detroit pulls at me, though. Both ways. I am ambivilant. I want to cut all ties to my safe, sane existence and head out there and visit before they find a solution, see that post-apocalyptic insanity. I want to buckle back down and make sure I never have to visit that post-apocalyptic insanity, make a safe and secure haven for myself right here where I am and pitch in to keep this community going strong.
Do I get to have an opinion about a city I've never visited? It seems reasonable to me to bulldoze the outlying regions and concentrate everybody in a more reasonably-sized area. I think a lot of cities could benefit from razing suburbs, actually, even in mostly-healthy areas - suburban sprawl is contributing to many of our social and ecological problems.
But what about the people still living in those areas of Detroit? There are some, according to the maps. Do they want to keep living where they are, or would they rather be consolidated? Many (or most?) of the people still living there are desperately poor, too poor to relocate or perfectly content squatting rent-free where they are. Does that change the value of their opinions?
I'm glad the town I live in is doing pretty well. There's a growing amount of empty retail space but the downtown is still busy and there's a growing area out by the highway. I've been wanting to break out of the status quo of my awful job for a while now, but I'm terrified that I won't be able to find another one, or at least not another one with health insurance. Reading about a place like Detroit pulls at me, though. Both ways. I am ambivilant. I want to cut all ties to my safe, sane existence and head out there and visit before they find a solution, see that post-apocalyptic insanity. I want to buckle back down and make sure I never have to visit that post-apocalyptic insanity, make a safe and secure haven for myself right here where I am and pitch in to keep this community going strong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)