let me see if this works

hmmm

the worst page on your e-commerce website

is this -

 

      Login to your existing account OR Create a new account here

Your Email Address *
I want to create a new account
I already have an account
Enter Password *

 

asking the user to register/logon when he has made the 'i'm gonna buy it' decision can turn him off, and you lose real business.

If creating a new account, give a frequently used email address. All correspondence will be done through this address.

Forgot your password? Click here.

Posted via email from zerothabhishek's posterous

nice presentation on OAuth

The Present Future of OAuth

View more presentations from Michael Bleigh.

Posted via web from zerothabhishek's posterous

Is a domestic windmill possible

Posted originally on July 11 2008 

My calculations:

Small scale Wind Power: A calculation

Power Output =>

where P = power in watts,

α = an efficiency factor determined by the design of the turbine,

ρ = mass density of air,

r = radius of the wind turbine,

v = velocity of the air

As an example given on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine), for the following typical values,

α = 0.59 or less (Betz’ law)

ρ = 1.225 kilograms per cubic metre at 15 °C

r = 100 metre (diameter)

v = 28.8 km/h

the power output P can be around 1.5 MW

Now in typical Bnagalore conditions, the values for a domestic turbine are

α = 0.59 or less (Betz’ law) (same)

ρ = 1.204 kilograms per cubic metre at 20°C (calculations done at 1.165 kilograms per cubic metre at 30 °C )

r = 1 metre

v = 10 km/h (source google weather)

and the power is  = (1.5 MW) * (ρ2/ρ1) * (r2/r1)2 * (v2/v1)3

= (1.5MW) * (1.165) * (1/100)2 * (10/28.8)3

= 6.4 Watts approx

Also, the efficiency factor can go further down, and at an efficiency of say 30% we get almost 3 watt.

So to make it feasible - giving almost 60 Watt power, which is 20 times, either the diameter should be increased to almost upto 4.5 ()times - upto 4.5 metre or may be expect the wind to blow almost 2.7 (cube root of 20) times faster (at maybe 30 Km/hr), or a combination of both.

The first proposition is not actually good for domestic users with little or no roof space. The second can work in lot of coastal areas. The third can be worked out 

The Zen of Python

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those! (source)

So much philosophy behind a computer-programming language?
Well, yes! The programs in python do follow the above aphorisms.
I can vouch for at least the highlighted ones.

Cisco's Telepresence

Watch This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcfNC_x0VvE

This is Cisco's telepresence magic !

What it appears like: DeBeer in US, Chambers in India, but both appear on a stage, together, (in India), and both are talking-laughing-discussing-every thing except shaking hands.

What they want us to believe: Cisco has discovered magic. Something like a sci-fi virtual reality movie.

What we guess: Perhaps they have discovered some 3D projection technology which they are using to duplicate the 3D video data they are capturing from a remote location and sending through high bandwidth channels. Not for everyone right now, only the corporate biggies are going to use it, but the technology is here.

The reality: Look at this wikipedia page. Cisco's Telepresence "...provides high-definition 1080p video, spatial audio, and a setup designed to link two physically separated rooms so they resemble a single conference room ...". Also, " ..The setup for the system include special tables, microphones, speakers, cameras, and lighting ..."

So how is the 'innovation' Chambers is so loud about (star trek and all) any different from a normal video-conferencing apparatus? The video quality is superior (1080p high-definition), agreed, but not the best available in market. 2K/4K digital cinema technology is commercially available, and ultra-high definition video is in the research phase (the comparison). And the sound? We already use lifelike sound in many of our electronic appliances. And then the lights-camera-action (and tables), are what a technology company should claim to be so proud about? Does it not look like just an assembly of high-performing products, already available in market, garnished with a disgustingly fake marketing campaign (which includes this video)? Bollywood song-choreographers can do it better.

And not to forget the price tag - $249000 - close to a crore rupees.

The product itself is pretty honest about its capabilities, but what makes it look flimsy-shallow is the way Mr Chambers chose to present it in India, as shown in the video.

3D printing

This (1,2) is really exciting.

Not only can this printer 'print' three dimensional objects, it is also capable of creating its own parts. Vik Olliver, the person behind the project, calls it REP-RAP (Replicating Rapid-prototyper), and aims to build a machine that can copy itself.

The major highlights of the project are self replication and GPL licensing.

The technology for 3-D printing exists and this uses one of them (Rapid Prototyping technology-Fused deposition modeling). It involves depositing layers of plastic to create 3-D models. But not only is the technology still more in research labs than tech markets, it it deemed to be very costly (a typical figure, provided by Olliver himself is some 30,000 euros). But Rep-Rap, he claims, should be affordable enough even for the developing world, where the material costs should be about 400 euros.

And the other feature that makes is affordable is the 'open' nature. So the design of Rep-Rap will be freely available under the GPL license. So anyone who can afford the material, and can invest the effort to use it or improve it, can do it. (One more condition- he should follow the GPL and keep his innovation also open)

It really good to imagine what all can be done if one such handy-robust-inexpensive machine is available that will make 3D objects for everything we can design on the computer. While most of it is expected to be models-prototypes, but a lot more can be imagined within the current constraints - toys, electronic circuits, showpieces and a lot of household stuff. Add more technology to this, for example, 3d printing with customizable material attributes - hardness, elasticity, conductivity, heat resistance. And then composites prints of various materials with varying attributes. All this and you are making almost everything that is being manufactured industrially.

Revolutionary!

Also interesting are Olliver's comments when he says - "We make no apology for this - as any biologist will appreciate, having the machine copy itself is the most useful possible thing we can make it do, and is the primary goal of the whole project" and this - "lmost all these were done by Vik Olliver, who clearly takes advantage of the 48-hour days they have south of the equator..."
Olliver works for CatalystIT, a Wellington-based open-source business system provider. He used his 'Google Time' he gets from his company for this, which means he is allowed to work on his own research projects one day a week.