Jumat, 29 Januari 2010

First 3D Television Channel to Launch in the U.S. in 2010

It certainly looks like 2010 is shaping up to be the year during which 3D finally moves from the realm of novelty into both mainstream film and TV. Satellite cable provider DirecTV has a new satellite in the air, and according to HD Guru, one of the 200 new HD stations to be broadcast from it includes the first U.S. HDTV channel in 3D.

There are still some technical hurdles to clear before you’re watching zany sitcom antics flying toward you, but the trend is clear. The satellite begins full operation in March, and existing DirecTV set-top boxes will simply need a firmware upgrade to support the 3D programming. Unfortunately, you’ll still need to pick up a 3D-capable HDTV to play it back, and that’s where the market lag will play a role in determining how fast 3D will penetrate.

Although 3D content has a long history stretching all the way back to 1922 — when the first public 3D movie was displayed — a number of optics and display challenges, as well as market realities, relegated 3D to a periodic novelty for decades. With the vast majority of the technical hurdles now solved and 3D displays making steady inroads at seminal trade shows like CES over the past couple of years, 2010 is poised to be 3D’s breakout year. The emergence of a string of blockbusters like Avatar, Alice in Wonderland and more rounds out 3D’s emergence — or re-emergence — on the big screen. Soon, consumers will come to expect the same experience in their home theater as well.

Sony, Samsung, Mitsubishi, LG and other manufacturers will be showing off 3D displays at CES 2010 next week. They’ll be hoping the stars will align properly to make 2010 3D’s breakout year, and DirectTV’s news is a timely piece of that puzzle. Are you excited about 3D’s inroads to the home, or is your pocketbook still weary from the last cycle of high definition upgrades?


http://mashable.com/2009/12/29/first-us-3dtv-channel/

The Top 2010 3D TV Models: Firsthand Photos



Samsung LED 9000

3D televisions were the hottest trend at CES this year. We grabbed pictures of all the top models from Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, and LG. So take a firsthand look at the future of television straight from the show floor.

World’s Smallest Working Train Model

source= http://www.funis2cool.com/unusual/worlds-smallest-working-train-model.html

The world’s smallest operational train set is a “real” miniature object, it is built on a scale of 1:35200, and measures just 1/8 of an inch x 1/4 of an inch. The best part certainly is that the set is functional, even with that small size. Made by David Smith, the model has a five-carriage train traveling around an oval route.

World's smallest working train model 01

Powered by a standard two-inch-long rotating motor head and carved out of mouldable plastic, the model train cost Mr Smith just over L6 to make. “To get a sense of scale you have to remember that the River Branch project is being built to the scale of 1-220,” Mr Smith added. ‘It has taken up two-and-a half-years of my life and is going to be very impressive once it is finished.’

World's smallest working train model 02

World's smallest working train model 03

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related posts


10 Optical Illusions That are Going to Mess With Your Brain


Published by Nattyb at 10:00 am under Images

Optical Illusions

If you like what you see above then you’ll love this post. If you don’t then I highly suggest you not click on the “continue reading ” link. Our brains tend to love to play tricks on us when the occasion calls for it. So with the right colors, shapes, and patterns sometimes we’re tricked into seeing things that we really don’t see.

For the record, I’m a huge fan of optical illusions. Personally, I don’t really care to learn why a clearly still image appears to be moving. However I definitely find it interesting.

So if you’re up for the eye pain, check out 10 amazing optical illusions after the jump

Why these circles rotate I have no clue

Optical Illusions

Um, what?

Optical Illusions

Keep your eye on that center and watch the disappearing act

Optical Illusions

I don’t get it, I just don’t

Optical Illusions

Stop moving!

Optical Illusions

Am I tripping? Seriously, am I tripping?

Optical Illusions

OK, I’m getting out of here

Optical Illusions

Or not

Optical Illusions

Phew!

Optical Illusions

OK I had to throw that one in there :)

http://unrealitymag.com/index.php/2010/01/25/ten-amazing-optical-illusions/


Jumat, 15 Januari 2010

How To Start A Child In An Astronomy Hobby

Solar Eclipse January 2010, I caught the astronomy bug at an early age. It was right after my dinosaur-obsession and right before my car-obsession. Unfortunately, my interest in astronomy ended as abruptly as it began and on a very sour note. It took almost 30 years for me to decide to take it up again, and when I did it was hard to imagine waiting so long. Upon reflection, I realized I didn’t just stop; I stopped out of anger and frustration. My mother confirmed this recalling that when I was about 8 years old, my father and I went out with my little telescope for the first time. A half hour later when we came back in I wanted nothing more to do with it and wouldn’t even talk about it! It’s very easy to get a child interested in astronomy but it’s even easier for them to get frustrated and quit. I’ve come up with four suggestions that I feel may help you avoid the pitfalls I experienced and inspire your future scientist to take up the amazing hobby of astronomy and enjoy it for a lifetime!

First, you don’t need a telescope for an astronomy hobby. You heard that right! The very best way to start out is by learning about what you’re looking at. And you don’t need any equipment to do it. Get a book on constellations, sit down with your future astronomer (during the day), and start with the constellations that are visible for that time of year. Learn to identify the patterns, associate them with their names, and read the stories behind the historical characters they are named after. Kids have amazing memories and are fantastic at learning patterns and associating the names with them. Perfect for constellations! Check out science kits, science toys, and Janice VanCleave science experiment books, they are a great way to get started. After your child has become familiar with and can identify some of the constellations in the book, wait for a dark clear night, lie out on a blanket, and identify as many as you can. It will be so much fun you will count the days until the next time you go stargazing!

Now let’s talk about what you can and cannot see. The moon is amazing to look at through either binoculars or a telescope, but it’s bright so make sure you have a moon filter so you don’t hurt your eyes! A moon filter is like wearing sunglasses, it reduces the amount of light entering your eye(s). And don’t observe the moon when it’s full, it’s too washed out. Shadows bring out details in craters and other landscape features. Meteor showers are fun and there are schedules that will tell you when and where to look for them. Constellations are easy to see with the naked eye, but try to go out during a new moon (also called a dark moon) or close to it. The brighter the moon the harder it is to see celestial objects. With binoculars you will be able to see many open clusters and globular clusters, quite beautiful! With a low powered telescope you’ll be able to see both types of clusters, some double stars, and a few nebulae. You may also get to see Jupiter and Saturn. The only galaxy you should expect to see is Andromeda (M31), the closest large galaxy to the Milky Way. Unless you live under extremely dark skies and have a big telescope, galaxies are just too faint and too far away to see. Even Andromeda will look like a faint fuzzy in most parts of the country.

This leads right into my second postulate. Objects seen through a telescope rarely look like the clear, colorful, large photos you see. The human eye is unable to see the color that can be picked up by a camera. Therefore, a nebula that shows up in photos with wonderful reds and purples, and sticks out in sharp contrast to neighboring stars will look gray, faint, and ghostly through your telescope. And that’s if you can see it at all. Jupiter will show some color, but the image will be very small in your eyepiece and making out details will be difficult. I’m not saying the objects you see will be disappointing, quite the contrary. But if expectations are set too high for a child, the let-down can be damaging. Learning about the objects first will make them much more interesting to observe.

Let’s take the following example: Imagine looking at a globular cluster (personally, my favorite object in the sky). Looks pretty amazing through your telescope, believe me. But look at it again knowing its M-13 or Messier 13, the Hercules Cluster, the best globular cluster north of the celestial equator. This is a naked eye object under very dark skies with 500,000 stars extending 150 light years across and a distance of 26,000 light years from Earth. Discovered by Edmond Halley (of Halley’s Comet) in 1714. While Messier never saw its individual stars, even a small telescope brings out the details in this magnificent mass of stars. This globular cluster is about 14 billion years old! Three dark rifts radiate outward from near the center, like a dark “propeller”. M-13 is located in the constellation Hercules, son of Zeus, the hero who was made to perform twelve great tasks to cleanse himself after he went temporarily insane, killing his wife and children. Even if your child can’t grasp all the concepts, do you see how the constellation and the objects now have life?

Third, (as I’ve previously mentioned) you need to manage a child’s expectations. If they expect to see a big, bright, colorful object, and they end up having to struggle to see a bland, blurry one that takes you a long time to find, they will get frustrated and lose interest. Kids have big imaginations as we can see by the cartoons they watch. Their world is big, loud, and colorful and their attention span is short. It also depends on what age your child is. The Janice VanCleave science experiment books are for kids 8 years and older, and that’s probably a good age to start them with a telescope. They may be interested in constellations at an earlier age but when it comes time to look at things through the telescope it’s a little tougher. Astronomy can be a slow and deliberate hobby, with beauty in the very subtle details of the objects. As a parent you need to decide when to start your child in this fantastic hobby. If they have become interested, teach them as much as they can soak up!

And fourth, when you are ready to buy a telescope, don’t buy a cheap piece of junk! Now let me tell you how I really feel. ? You don’t need to spend a lot of money, but buying an inferior scope is a recipe for disaster. Walking through department stores you’ll notice the no-name brand telescopes being sold that advertise 400x power (sounds good, right?) and show beautiful large color pictures of heavenly objects on the box. As we’ve discussed, you won’t be seeing those objects on the box the way they are shown, but it’s a nice marketing tool. Cheap telescopes don’t focus well and 400 power just blurs images. A low power scope with quality optics is the best way to go, and they are inexpensive. A great source on the web is Science Store for the Stars for telescopes and Janice VanCleave science books.

Years after I put my telescope into “storage”, I got it out again and took it apart to see what was inside. The primary mirror was basically a piece of tin foil that reflected the little bit of light it could muster onto a small mirror that looked just like the hand mirror a dentist puts into your mouth. It was a complete piece of junk! It never focused or showed anything in detail. Even the moon was blurry. No wonder I angrily quit the hobby! Of course there was no way for my parents to know, and how would you?

Very briefly let’s talk about telescopes. The purpose of a telescope is to first, capture light with the primary mirror or refracting lens(s), and second, to focus it (with an eyepiece) into a clear and sharp image. The eyepieces are what give you different powers (also called magnifications). One lesson I learned rather quickly was that you don’t need an expensive, large, and powerful scope to see some of the best objects in the sky. But you do need a quality telescope. There are many different designs of telescopes, but there are really only 2 types; refractors and reflectors. Refractor telescopes use lenses like binoculars to refract or bend the light coming in. Reflectors, on the other hand, use a primary mirror which reflects light to a smaller secondary mirror, then through an eyepiece (a lens) before it gets to your eye. There are many different kinds of reflectors including the Dobsonian, SCT or Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope, Maksutov-Cassegrain, Newtonian reflectors, Ritchey-Chretien, and others. We won’t get into the specifics of these, but the different types of reflectors all basically work the same way; by reflecting light.

If you start by learning about the constellations and other celestial objects and manage your child’s expectations, they will appreciate what they see. When it comes time to buy a telescope, do your research! There are plenty of inexpensive telescopes with quality optics out there. Try Science Store for the Stars for great starter scopes by Smithsonian and Educational Insights. Both are affordable with high quality optics. They also have Janice VanCleave science books on astronomy and constellations. If you follow these guidelines, you and your young astronomer will enjoy the hobby of astronomy for a lifetime!

Selasa, 03 November 2009

Innovation: Getting beyond the breakthrough

Corporations need to stop looking for the silver bullet –and to start listening to outsiders.
--------------
sources=
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/08/31/innovation-getting-beyond-the-breakthrough/
-----------------
Hagel: U.S. executives may need to shift their mindsets. Photo: Deloitte

New research by the Deloitte Center for the Edge, part of tax and consulting firm Deloitte, paints an ominous picture: The return on assets for U.S. firms has fallen to almost a quarter of 1965 levels despite continued improvements in labor productivity.

And according to John Hagel III, co-chair of the center and one of the study's authors, the declines are taking place in all sectors of business — not just in maturing corporations. "The bottom line," he tells Fortune, "is that in every industry there has been erosion of return on assets."

Hagel and his fellow researchers are in the process of writing a follow-up study that will offer some detailed prescriptions for reversing the trend, but he shared some early insights with us. Two of his observations in particular stood out: 1) He says corporations need to move away from the idea of breakthrough innovation and 2) companies need to find a way to harness new kinds of information flows.

Hagel contends that U.S. companies' innovation efforts tend to focus on home runs — big, honking inventions that can, out of the gate, produce hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and transform entire industries. In other words, products such as Apple's iPod.

But Hagel is fond of pointing out that even the iPod wasn't exactly an overnight breakthrough for Apple. Rather, he notes, the device has its roots in a company called PortalPlayer, which had been developing an operating system for digital music players for several years before it ultimately teamed with Apple on the iPod.

He offers one explanation for the home-run oriented mindset: 20th century corporations have operating and cost structures that need their products and innovations to succeed at a large scale, and so there's great pressure to produce big breakthroughs.

But Hagel feels a shift to high-velocity but smaller breakthroughs may ultimately produce the same result: "We tend to underestimate the value of rapid, incremental innovations, which actually begin to look like breakthroughs over time," he suggests.

New source of information

Hagel's other prescription — culling information from new and different sources –also calls for a shift in corporate thinking.

Deloitte's study, "The 2009 Shift Index," is actually a look at three different indices that help measure business change. The "flow index" is an effort to capture the value of so-called knowledge flows – information flowing into and out of the organization.

Hagel maintains that companies tend to be focused on internal and adjacent flows: information from within their organization, and knowledge gleaned from those closest to the company, such as suppliers and customers.

But to stay competitive, U.S. companies are going to have to adopt new ways of gathering information – a big shift that will itself require companies to innovate. For example, companies are simply going to have to figure out what information is valuable to track, and which flows are not helpful, Hagel says.

Hagel has done extensive work with Indian and Chinese organizations, and he believes U.S. executives can learn from the way companies in these emerging markets operate. He points to Chinese conglomerate Li & Fung Group as an example of a company that effectively tracks and applies knowledge from a variety of sources.

One of Li & Fung's businesses is garment manufacturing. Rather than act as an integrated one-stop-shop for its retail customers, Li & Fung uses multiple contractors who come together for certain projects, then disband after the task is completed.

By tapping into its various contractors – including those who aren't currently employed on a job – the company is able to get perhaps a more complete view of the world than competitors who only listen to direct suppliers.

When Li & Fung launched in the 70s, Hagel says, it gleaned knowledge from, say, materials manufacturers, and passed that information on to its apparel designer customers.

Today, Hagel says, companies have to rethink the way they gather information – and from where – in order to tap all the most important direct and indirect sources of information.

But they probably don't need a breakthrough innovation to do it.

Sabtu, 10 Oktober 2009

Do women have the brains to be great scientists?

http://www.more.com/2050/8887-women-and-science/2

Hopkins, an MIT professor, walked out when the president of Harvard implied that women scientists were innately less talented than male ones. Now, the Nobel Prizes give her the last laugh.

It’s been a spectacular week for women in science, and a bad week for “the Larry Summers hypothesis." In 2005, while president of Harvard, he suggested that women are inherently worse than men at math, science and engineering, particularly at the highest levels. This week three women won Nobel prizes in science: two in medicine and one in chemistry. That achievement should put the nail in the coffin of the question Summers raised: Can many women really be great scientists? 

When I was a graduate student in biology at Harvard 40 years ago, my colleagues used to sit around discussing whether girls were capable of being great scientists. Could a woman really win a Nobel Prize in molecular biology? Men I knew wondered if women’s brains were so different from men's that they couldn’t make the creative breakthroughs that lead to the greatest discoveries. That’s what I wondered too. Sure, there was Madame Curie--but there were too few Madame Curies to convince us she was anything but an exception.

It turns out that back then, in the dark ages for women in science, we were asking the wrong question. Instead of asking if women's brains were inferior, we should have asked why there were so few women at the major research universities and laboratories that breed future Nobel laureates.

In the late 1960s there were essentially no women on the science faculties of places like Harvard, Cal Tech and MIT (where I now work as a professor of molecular biology). Things began to change dramatically in the early 1970s, thanks to affirmative action measures taken under Richard Nixon. Those included the “Shultz regs” (George Shultz was Nixon's Secretary of Labor), which required universities to hire women onto their faculties or risk losing their federal funding. The Nobel prizes in medicine this week are the end result of those laws. Nobelist Elizabeth Blackburn joined the Berkeley faculty in 1978 and Nobelist Carol Greider was her star graduate student. (The third new laureate is Ada Yonath, an Israeli.)

Until about 10 years ago, women still comprised only five percent of the science faculty at Harvard and eight percent at MIT, with similar numbers at other high-powered research universities. (Today 17 percent of the MIT science faculty are women, as a result of specific efforts by the MIT administration in collaboration with senior women faculty.) But even those paltry numbers from 10 years ago have been enough to start yielding female Nobelists. In fact, if we assume that female faculty win these prizes at the same rate as male faculty, then only in the past couple of years have there been enough women employed at MIT to begin producing Nobel laureates.

Meanwhile, women faculty at MIT are now elected to the National Academy of Sciences at the same rate as men, and they have finally begun to win some of the most prestigious science awards. For example, yesterday a woman from MIT–the great chemist JoAnne Stubbe–received the National Medal of Science from President Obama, in part for developing a cancer-treating drug now in clinical trials. She has also worked to make science more welcoming for the young women who will come after her. Her accomplishments are off the charts.

Every time a female scientist wins one of these major awards, it is very emotional for me, reducing me to tears. Most are tears of joy at seeing these amazing pioneers recognized for their achievements after the decades-long struggle for women’s equality in science. But I am also sad, thinking of all the great discoveries that were lost when half the population was kept out.

My emotions may even include a trace of I-told-you-so. It’s shocking that as recently as 2005 Larry Summers could propose that women’s genetic inferiority might explain their small numbers at the pinnacle of scientific achievement. I walked out in protest. You'd expect Harvard to know better!

Maybe 2009 will be remembered as a watershed for women in science. At the very least it should mark the end of the nonsensical, outdated and damaging idea that women lack the interest or genetic ability to do great math and science.

Nancy Hopkins is professor of molecular biology at MIT and a founding member of The New Agenda.