Re: Lower power portable Linux
Ben Scott wrote: A recent review[1] of the Asus Eee PC stated (paraphrased): Power management on Linux sucks. [1] http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/11/16/review_asus_eee_pc/print.html Back when I looked into this (years ago), that was largely true. During active use, Linux was more power efficient vs Windows, but when the machine was fully idle, Linux did little to save even more power. Turning off the CRT was about it. S3 (suspend-to-RAM) was often prevented by drivers. S4 (suspend-to-disk) was experimental, unstable, and/or just plain didn't work. From the comments to the above: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/11/16/review_asus_eee_pc/comments/ The battery drain while sleeping issue that you had isn't some fault of Linux, it's just a configuration option that Asus set. There are multiple sleep modes in machines with ACPI - apparently they chose suspend to RAM which allows for extremely fast wakeups but uses some power rather than suspend to disk which takes longer to wake up but uses no power. which at least implies that suspend-to-disk is available and works better. Kent ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Boston Linux Meeting Wednesday, November 21, 2007 The Making of MythDora
When: November 21, 2007 7:00PM (6:30 for QA) Topic: The Making of MythDora Moderator: Jarod Wilson, Red Hat Software Location: MIT Building E51 Room 315 Jarod discusses what went into creating MythDora 4, a simplfied MythTV installation ISO image based on Fedora Core 6. Jarod also shows a live demo of the installer and an installed system. For much more information, and Parking please refer to http://www.blu.org/cgi-bin/calendar/2007-nov There is a parking lot adjacent to the building at 2 Amherst St. Note: The after-meeting meeting will be at The Cambridge Brewery. -- Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Free Hardware
2) Dell PowerEdge 2300. Beefy dual P3/600 server machine with 1.5GB If this hasn't been spoken for I would love it and ca pick it up this weekend. Mark ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: LinkedIn group for GNHLUG
Ted Roche wrote: LinkedIn has approved the group I set up for GNHLUG. If you're interested in joining, you have to join LinkedIn first, then click on this link: http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/42315/32A73B64F8DC FYI, for those who like to measure such things, we got 21 members in the first 24 hours. -- Ted Roche Ted Roche Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lower power portable Linux
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 06:03:31PM -0500, Ben Scott wrote: A recent review[1] of the Asus Eee PC stated (paraphrased): Power management on Linux sucks. I haven't read the review, but I agree with the statement that power management on Linux sucks. Turning off the CRT was about it. S3 (suspend-to-RAM) was often prevented by drivers. S4 (suspend-to-disk) was experimental, unstable, and/or just plain didn't work. Can anyone who has played with this more recently comment on how a modern Linux distro does on today's hardware? I've had scripts to successfully 'hibernate' (suspend to disk) my laptops for years, working at least as far back as 2.4-series kernels. I have yet to see suspend to RAM work on Linux anywhere. I'm especially interested in how it fares for someone like me, who prefers to run a traditional *nix window manager and logon, without session management and a desktop environment and a bunch of extra daemons and so on. I fit that description. If you want my hibernate scripts, let me know and I'll pack them up when I get home tonight. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP KeyID 0x57C3430B Holder of Past Knowledge CS, O- If I had but one life to give for my country, I'd pick somebody I really, really dislike. Tidewater Joe ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lower power portable Linux
On Nov 21, 2007 12:08 PM, mike ledoux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 06:03:31PM -0500, Ben Scott wrote: [...] I have yet to see suspend to RAM work on Linux anywhere. [...] I'm especially interested in how it fares for someone like me, who prefers to run a traditional *nix window manager and logon, without session management and a desktop environment and a bunch of extra daemons and so on. I fit that description. Your two comments are directly related. Its not quite flawless, but suspend to ram is definitely working. ...its just that you prefer the DIY approach. Cheers! Ty -- Tyson D Sawyer A well-schooled electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read Books shall not be infringed. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lower power portable Linux
On Nov 21, 2007, at 12:08, mike ledoux wrote: I've had scripts to successfully 'hibernate' (suspend to disk) my laptops for years, working at least as far back as 2.4-series kernels. I have yet to see suspend to RAM work on Linux anywhere. In some ways this is easier. As I understand it, suspend-to-disk is just moving all active RAM into swap and then marking the swapfile with some magic that the boot routines understand means put this back into memory. IIRC the OLPC guys are fixing linux as they go. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
[OT] Simple math considered physics; turns out it's fun, not harmful
I really like the indoor batting facility in Salisbury, MA (Extra Innings). I wondered how 'fast' the fast cage was. It seemed really fast and has taken me a few visits to get to the point where I can hit the ball. I asked today how fast the machine was. The friendly staff person told me it pitches at 50mph and the machine is 33ft. from the plate. A regular pitcher's mound is 60.5 ft from the plate. He said if I have some friends who know physics I could figure out how fast that is in the big leagues. I'm not making fun of the guy, but physics isn't involved in solving the problem, just regular math. nb: there are 5,280 feet / mile spoiler: the answer is below. If you want to figure it out for yourself, stop here for a bit. anser below. anser below. 'fast' batting cage speed 50 miles / 1 hour = 264,000 feet / 3,600 seconds = 73.333 feet / second X = elapsed time to home plate = X seconds / 33 feet = 1 second / 73.333 feet 73.333X = 33 X = .45 seconds Y = Big League pitch speed = 60.5 feet / .45 seconds = Y feet / 1 second Y = 134.444 feet / second * 3600 / 5280 = 91.66 mph That's fast. It's also faster than the guy said. He said it was supposed to be somewhere in the 70 mph range. Perhaps the numbers are off. There is another 'VERY fast' cage that supposedly throws 60mph and is slightly further away (like 33.5 feet). I don't know whether I should be happy (I am) that I can hit the equivalent of a 91mph fastball. Or, if I should be sad that an average person might think that there is physics rather than math involved. -- A: Yes. Q: Are you sure? A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [OT] Simple math considered physics; turns out it's fun, not harmful
that is in the big leagues. I'm not making fun of the guy, but physics isn't involved in solving the problem, just regular math. Physics is just applied math. All the world is functions. -- Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [OT] Simple math considered physics; turns out it's fun, not harmful
On Nov 21, 2007 5:51 PM, Greg Rundlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or, if I should be sad that an average person might think that there is physics rather than math involved. Physics was involved. Indeed, you just solved a physics problem. The fact that you used math doesn't mean it wasn't a physics problem. You also probably used English to talk to the guy; that doesn't mean it was an English problem, either. Or maybe it was; after all, if you didn't know English, it wouldn't matter how good your math and physics skills were, because you wouldn't have been able to get the needed information from the guy. Related: An interesting point to ponder is: What problem did you really solve? You figured the time it took for the ball to travel from pitcher to plate, and from that figured how fast the ball would have to be going to travel the same distance in the same time on an MLB field. But is that really the same thing as a real MLB pitcher's fastball? I suspect not. :) But *that's* more about biology and human-factors than either math or physics. Huh. Maybe there is something to this education thing after all. ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: SFD (continuing) -- Wadleigh Memorial Library, Milford
On Nov 20, 2007 2:23 PM, Bill Sconce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Especially, my own thanks go out to the other members of the team, Roseann and Mark. Thanks, guys! And three cheers for Bill for being the heart and driving force behind it all! [2a] (Shouldn't there be a kiosk in every public library where free-software disks are available for people to take home?) Yes, there should be! I think the idea of Free(dom) Software aligns perfectly with the spirit of a library, of the free and open exchange of ideas and information. In the past, GNHLUG member(s) were working on a Library Project intended to do just that: Maintain a catalog of FOSS discs at libraries, which the library would put in circulation (just like books). Perhaps it is time to revitalize said project? http://wiki.gnhlug.org/twiki2/bin/view/Organizational/LibraryProject 1. Libarary isn't spelled that way; 2. Librarians do NOT overlook such things... *chuckle* -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [OT] Simple math considered physics; turns out it's fun, not harmful
On Wednesday 21 November 2007 17:51, Greg Rundlett wrote: He said if I have some friends who know physics I could figure out how fast that is in the big leagues. I'm not making fun of the guy, but physics isn't involved in solving the problem, just regular math. Actually, it is a physics problem. Assuming the ball velocity is measured at home plate, the ball is likely to have left the pitcher's hand at a considerably higher speed than it has at the end of its travel. With the Reynold's number for the baseball and some well accepted flow models, the flow regime can be determined. I would guess it is in the velocity cubed region. That means drag forces are proportional to velocity cubed, and thus the speed may vary considerably during its travel. Again, subject to a rather straight forward computational confirmation. If the ball is slowing down significantly, it must be going quite a bit faster at 33 feet, and even faster at 60 feet. Which means that the travel time (batter response time) is shorter for a 96mph pitch than you calculated by the linear speed approximation. In fact, intuitively the 70mph guess might be about right. Anyway, congratulations for turning to some math (and physics) for an initial guess. Very often, particularly in engineering, such approximations are good enough to whittle choices down to only one (or none), making the more sophisticated computation unnecessary. And it gives more insight than a blind guess. And fun. The difference between pure math, applied math, and physics is probably too OT for this forum. But interesting. Jim Kuzdrall ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [OT] Simple math considered physics; turns out it's fun, not harmful
I just offer an interesting example of how math ain't that hard, and can be used to solve fun problems. The basic question at hand was How fast does the machine pitch? (compared to a major-league pitcher). The basic answer could be found through some unit conversion and cross multiplication. I didn't need a calculator to figure it out, I just wrote it down on a piece of paper. Aside: One thing that I enjoyed about being a carpenter back in college was that I used math all the time to solve interesting problems with a pencil and a scrap of wood. Philosophically and sociologically, I'm asking why somebody who worked there wouldn't solve these problems out of curiosity. Because they don't know how? Because they don't care? Because they were conditioned by social norms to believe the subject is too difficult or uncool? The science of physics is certainly involved in this situation; you can't escape physics in a physical world. If I thought about the problem from more of a physical perspective, then I'd wonder if air-resistance and distance factored into the two scenarios to create any difference. Is there a (marked) difference in deccelleration (initial velocity - final velocity) between the two environments due to the almost double distance traveled by a major-league fast ball? Does a fast ball even slow down in that short of a distance? Also, how does the trajectory compare? A pitch comes from a pitcher on a mound. Is the ball machine at a similar elevation in relation to the batter? I theorize that a dimpled plastic practice ball travelling 33 feet travels more linearly than a major-league two-seam fastball travelling 60.5 feet, but maybe there is no difference in trajectory. There is a lot more math involved, but I don't know those equations or models. I certainly don't know how to model the aerodynamics of a dimpled ball relative to a stitched baseball, and I guess for practical purposes I'm happy to not care. jokingMaybe the space-time warp created by the massive concrete floor has an effect compared to the relatively light sod at Fenway/joking small attempt to bring subject on-topicI bet there is a lot going on in Free Software to help physical scientists and mathematicians solve complex problems/satbsot All math and physics put aside, I know this much. I am 41 years old. The fact that I can hit a fast ball in the cages doesn't make me eligible to try out for the Red Sox. I guess I'll keep my day job and look for fun wherever I can find it :-) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [OT] Simple math considered physics; turns out it's fun, not harmful
Greg Rundlett wrote: Philosophically and sociologically, I'm asking why somebody who worked there wouldn't solve these problems out of curiosity. Because they don't know how? Because they don't care? Because they were conditioned by social norms to believe the subject is too difficult or uncool? I'm actually quite surprised no one did. The science of physics is certainly involved in this situation; you can't escape physics in a physical world. If I thought about the problem from more of a physical perspective, then I'd wonder if air-resistance and distance factored into the two scenarios to create any difference. Is there a (marked) difference in deccelleration (initial velocity - final velocity) between the two environments due to the almost double distance traveled by a major-league fast ball? [snip questions] There is, as you said, a small influence of the ball falling due to gravity, which I would expect to be a minor but present influence on the velocity. A comparison between the effects of gravity and of air friction would be interesting, as would any lift or other forces generated by a spin on the ball. There is a lot more math involved, but I don't know those equations or models. I certainly don't know how to model the aerodynamics of a dimpled ball relative to a stitched baseball, and I guess for practical purposes I'm happy to not care. It shouldn't be too difficult to calculate given a good experimental situation -- something any AP or college physics student could easily come up with. (Finding the acceleration and/or terminal velocity of a falling ball in a given atmospheric condition and calculating from there comes to mind.) small attempt to bring subject on-topicI bet there is a lot going on in Free Software to help physical scientists and mathematicians solve complex problems/satbsot My guess is that ballistics software would help more than aerodynamic modeling software in this case because of the trajectory and other factors involved. Also, to bring this more on topic, as a push for FOSS, with open source software you could use available source code for ballistics and aerodynamic modeling in order to find the exact answer here. In a closed source world, you'd have to start from scratch... In terms of education and its promotion, it might be interesting to use baseball physics to get students more interested who otherwise might not be... Brian ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
