A LASER, which is technically an acronym that stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, works in general as follows:
A
resonance chamber is filled with some substance and "stimulated" in
some manner so it wants to release photons. The photons a substance
releases will be of certain frequencies corresponding to the
substance's emission spectrum. The chamber is an integral multiple of
of the wavelength that you desire.
In my previous post, I discussed the practical matter of how to hold the outline structure we've built so far together. Having created a strong base, it is now fruitful to consider how to extend the data structure to handle the wide variety of outline structures I want Iron Lute to be able to manipulate.
One of the most interesting possibilities inherent in this structure is to formally recognize that there are a lot of potential different types of nodes that can be built.
Slashdot recently posted a panicky article about HR3261, the "Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act".
I read the proposed bill. Based on the Slashdot summary, especially the phrase "goes directly against the idea that nobody can own a fact", I was hoping to be able to perform a bit of judo on the legal system. If ownership of the database implied ownership of the facts within, then we could all form a corporation and give it our privacy-sensitive information (links to definition of this term) like our address and phone number, then sue people who use them against our will. We might have had some hoops to jump through (incorporating, meeting the creativity standard), but it probably could have been managed.
My wife recently got into Stargate: SG-1, a high quality science fiction television series that I was already a fan of.
The premise is that the United States Air Force is in possession of a "Stargate", a device that connect to other Stargates throughout the universe, analogously to a phone system, and send things there, including people. There are a wide variety of aliens in the universe at various technology levels from "just discovered fire" to "godlike", many of which did visit Earth in the past. The storyline proceeds from there.
We have a new telephone system coming in here at work. It is uniformly an improvement over the old system, at least on a technical level. It did, however, require purchasing new phones to go with the new system.
I want to shoot whoever designed them.
Or at least make him sit in this room with us for a week or two.
He (and I highly doubt it's a "she") seems to be under the impression that the job of a phone ring is to force you to pay attention to the phone. The phone has not done its job until you pick it up. So it is loud and shrill, and based on the how successful the sound is at being both of those things, I'm quite confident in declaring these characteristics were definately concious design decisions.
In my previous posts, I've answered the question "What Is An Outline?" from the point of view of Iron Lute. The resulting data structures are somewhat complicated. These data structures are at the heart of Iron Lute; if they fail, the entire program can come crashing down. Moreover, if nobody is capable of correctly using the data structures, they are still useless. It's worth discussing
One significant advantage a more conventional outline has over the outline structure I've built up here is that it is much easier to store the traditional outline in a file. Using XML, traditional outlines are almost trivial to store:
<node text="A"> <node text="B" /> <node text="C" attribute="D" /> </node>
Even if you don't read XML, you can quickly learn to read this format. About the only difference between what I just wrote and the official OPML specification is that OPML adds a <head> section that includes some metadata about the outline, and uses "outline" instead of "node".
And now for something a little different: Dos and Don'ts for DVD commentaries. I enjoy them but it seems somes producers need help.
I just had pretty much the worst week ever at work, which accounts for my not posting anything this week. How bad? I just finally noticed today that I didn't post my Monday Iron Lute post.
I can only hope this week is better. Unfortunately, it doesn't show any particular signs of improving, so posts may be slowed up this week too.
This week instead of continuing on with my outline series of posts, I think I may jump ahead and discuss the file format for my outline model, which is what I'm working on right now. Designing a file format to hold the data hasn't been too hard, but it's been a bit of a brain bender trying to figure out the best way to implement it. There are a few interesting things you can do with an outline structure you can't do with a conventional flat file, and I want to make sure that those things are possible. What day this will get posted, I don't know, since I still have to write it.
Hey, good news!
A federal court upheld the constitutionality of the National Do Not Call Registry on Tuesday, finally settling a legal battle around enforcement and leaving the popular list in place for the 57.2 million registered.
You can read the opinion yourself from the court, which is graciously providing it online (PDF, Text, WPD).
The summary from the beginning of the opinion:
The four cases consolidated in this appeal involve challenges to the national do-not-call registry, which allows individuals to register their phone numbers on a national "do-not-call list" and prohibits most commercial telemarketers from calling the numbers on that list. The primary issue in this case is whether the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing an opt-in telemarketing regulation that provides a mechanism for consumers to restrict commercial sales calls but does not provide a similar mechanism to limit charitable or political calls. We hold that the do-not-call registry is a valid commercial speech regulation because it directly advances the government's important interests in safeguarding personal privacy and reducing the danger of telemarketing abuse without burdening an excessive amount of speech. In other words, there is a reasonable fit between the do-not-call regulations and the government's reasons for enacting them.As we discuss below in greater detail, four key aspects of the do-not-call registry convince us that it is consistent with First Amendment requirements. First, the list restricts only core commercial speech i.e., commercial sales calls. Second, the do-not-call registry targets speech that invades the privacy of the home, a personal sanctuary that enjoys a unique status in our constitutional jurisprudence. See Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 484 (1988). Third, the do-not-call registry is an opt-in program that puts the choice of whether or not to restrict commercial calls entirely in the hands of consumers. Fourth, the do-not-call registry materially furthers the government's interests in combating the danger of abusive telemarketing and preventing the invasion of consumer privacy, blocking a significant number of the calls that cause these problems. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the requirements of the First Amendment are satisfied.