I had originally asked for any and all information about iPod's here, and got lots and lots of great answers in the comments. Then Dawn stopped me dead with this link and the quicktime video viewable from that page. If this is true, then the iPod isn't necessarily such a great deal anymore. Anyone know if what they say in the video is the real deal?

Update: Once again Dawn comes through! Look here for step-by-step instructions - with pictures - on how to replace your own iPod battery. Batteries run around $60.00 from the same company. That doesn't sound like an unreasonable price.

Posted by: Ted at 11:41 AM | category: SciTech
Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Ok, iPod's and MP3 players... what's the story?

I've tried to get answers to a few basic questions, and have had no luck so far, so I'm coming to the smartest people I know - folks who read my blog.

Suppose I buy one of these beasties and spend a buck a song to fill it up with music. That's a significant chunk of change on top of the initial price.

Is there a way to back up the music? I mean, if someone steals the iPod or it gets destroyed somehow (flying monkeys), am I out the hardware and the songs I've already paid for?

How much music does it actually hold? Assuming a mythical 3 minute rock'n'roll song, about how big is it? How many of these would fit in a 64MB memory? See what I'm getting at? I mean, what good is one of these if it only stores 20 songs at a time, I might as well keep my DiscMan.

Any upgrades available and doable by the average user? Better headphones, more memory, etc?

Batteries. What do they use, how long do they last, yadda yadda yadda.

What else do I need to know? I know these are very vague questions, but that's the kind of information I need. Don't tell me it holds up to 300 songs, because I know it will only hold 1 song, but it will be very very long. Getting the straight word on this kind of stuff drives me crazy, like used-car salesmen and military recruiters, you're only going to hear the good stuff.

Posted by: Ted at 12:17 PM | category: SciTech
Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I wish I could help you, Ted, but I don't even know any iPods (that's an amphibian, right?)

Posted by: Susie at December 19, 2003 12:31 PM (0+cMc)

2 I'm not the right person to ask, but I've been contemplating an iPod.

The average three minute rock 'n roll song (for some reason, "Devil Went Down to Georgia" popped in my head. Heh.) is about 3 or 4 megs of memory (remixes can go up to 8 or 10 megs). Your basic, no frills iPod holds 5 gigs (sadly, I just can't do the math!). You can get 5, 10 or 20 gigs of memory, depending how much you want to spend at the outset. I'm not sure these things are upgradable as far as installing memory, though.

From what I understand, you can file-share between one MP3 player and one computer -- meaning, you can have the music on both, but you can't also share with another computer or a friend's iPod. It's to keep it all legal, but I've no bloody clue how.

This, my friend, is why I never talk tech with anyone!

Posted by: Dawn at December 19, 2003 01:12 PM (0zfIx)

3 Thanks Dawn! The math works out like this: 5GB = ~5000MB, so if every song was 10MB, then that would be *valleygirl* omygod! 500 songs! We've been talking about it at work (no experts, but we've all - well, most of us - have heard music), and probably the complexity or density of music makes for bigger files as well as the length of the piece. I'd guess that a minute of Beethoven's 5th would take more space than a minute of Louie Louie.

Sound right?

Posted by: Ted at December 19, 2003 02:51 PM (blNMI)

4 "Devil went down to Georgia" good one Dawn!

Posted by: jim at December 19, 2003 03:58 PM (RCjGK)

5 i have an archos jukebox, hard-drive, 5 gb, i think, but it's at home. anyhow, i spent many hours ripping cds and loading songs on the dang thing and couldn't get it more than half full. i think it's somewhere around 700 songs, some of which are 20-minute samples of the Yes catalog, but most of which are in the usual 3-6 minute rock/blues/jazz range.

for backup, you'd prolly want one of those huge honking mega-gb drives, but you'd prolly want one of those for your computer system anyhow.

i just bought my boys (i'm pretty sure they aren't reading your blog, so this should be safe) solid-state mp3 players with 128mb memory. one one of them i loaded 70+ minutes of Klaatu (his favorite) and it's about half full.

hope this is somewhat helpful.

chris

Posted by: chris hall at December 19, 2003 04:52 PM (zH1Gw)

6 I have a 20 gig Ipod. Currently it has 176 songs = 14.1 hours of music using only 953MB of storage.

the ipod syncs with itunes - a free downlaos from apple for mac or windows so you caqn have a back-up on your system. the battery lasts about 8-10 hours.

I tunes will also rip music from your cds to mps files so you fill up you ipod for less.

Posted by: StMack at December 19, 2003 06:17 PM (CSxVi)

7 Thanks! This is the kind of information I've been looking for.

Posted by: Ted at December 19, 2003 07:37 PM (2sKfR)

8 It's actually pretty simple.

The most common recording rate (for MP3 and AAC, which is what Apple use) is 128Kbits/second. That's 16Kbytes/second, or almost exactly 1Mbyte per minute.

Current iPods come in 10GB, 20GB and 40GB flavours, so they hold 10,000 minutes = over 160 hours = about a week, 2 weeks and 4 weeks of music respectively. Or about 2500, 5000 and 10,000 typical songs.

You can plug your iPod (the new ones, anyway, I'm not sure about the older models) into your PC or Mac and treat it like just another disk drive - copy files, back them up, whatever. You can put non-mp3 files on there too if you want.

You can use higher bit rates if you want, for better quality, or use a variable bit rate (which means the software adapts to the complexity of the music and uses only as much space as it requires). I have all my music ripped at 256K... At that level, I can't tell the difference between the mp3 and the original CD, even on the stuff I wrote myself.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 20, 2003 09:16 AM (jtW2s)

9 I think there are 40 gig iPods now. I mean, they're just getting freakin' huge.

On WTOP they talked about iPods recently, and the two disadvantages were: Price, and batteries. The batteries are built in, so if it should ever need to be replaced (which it will, though it might be years) you gotta send it to a service center and let a Qualified Technician swap it out for you, at an exhorbitant price.

Having said that, I'd love to have one.

Posted by: Victor at December 20, 2003 10:03 AM (16A49)

10 I just found this over at Jane's place (www.social-reject.com):

http://www.ipodsdirtysecret.com

Somebody must've been pretty pissed off at Apple when they made this video!

Posted by: Dawn at December 22, 2003 01:06 PM (0zfIx)

11 u guys ar all idiots

Posted by: jack mehof at January 13, 2005 10:32 AM (PQC2+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Go visit Google for a clue about what today is.

Posted by: Ted at 11:32 AM | category: SciTech
Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

While European consortium Airbus concentrates on a behemoth passenger carrier (the A380 - seating up to 800*, due in 2006), Boeing takes a different path and announced their new 7E7 Dreamliner. By using more advanced composites than metal, the new jet will be lighter and 20% more fuel efficient. Also included are passenger-friendly features such as wider aisles and seats as well as larger windows, and it will carry up to 250 people over 8,000 miles non-stop.

Even though the first planes won't fly until 2008, Boeing will begin taking orders now. They project sales of 2000-3000 aircraft over 20 years.

* According to Airbus, the baseline capacity of the A380 is 555 passengers. I assume the larger numbers are 'cattle car' seating, where everyone flies coach.

Posted by: Ted at 09:18 PM | category: SciTech
No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

For those who have ever wondered why the sky was a lurid red in "The Scream" -- Edvard Munch's painting of modern angst -- astronomers have an answer.

Posted by: Ted at 01:09 PM | category: SciTech
No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm kind of surprised that this hasn't generated more buzz than it has. Surprised and relieved, actually.

A New Zealand man who built a cruise missile in his garage claims the New Zealand government forced him to shut down his project after coming under pressure from the United States.

Bruce Simpson says he built the missile using parts bought off the internet to show how easily it could be done.

There was some concern from the hobby rocketry community that this would reflect badly on us, especially because common sense isnÂ’t particularly common right now within the Department of Homeland Security or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).

So letÂ’s set it straight right up front. A cruise missile isnÂ’t a rocket, itÂ’s not even really a missile, itÂ’s an unmanned airplane. It flies like an airplane using a jet engine, and the onboard guidance system steers it to its target exactly like you steer an airplane. A cruise missile is nothing more than a faster one-shot version of the Predator or Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) now in use. The primary purpose is attack, unlike UAVÂ’s where the first job is surveillance.

In WWII, Germany developed a ‘glide bomb’ that was forerunner to modern cruise missiles. It lacked only its own propulsion, being dropped from a carrier aircraft at high altitude and gliding to the target.

Bruce Simpson (the developer in question) has since posted to the Rec.Models.Rockets newsgroup to discuss his work. He makes this claim:

You'll note that tthe project deliberately avoided any use of rocket engines -- even for the launch process. This was done deliberately because I didn't want any fallout on the model rocket community. I was fully aware that even if I'd used a sold rocket booster for launching, there was a very real risk that the knee-jerk reaction of politicians would have been to simply ban the sale and unlicensed production of all rocket engines.

Likewise, although I could have gone out and purchased three or four turbojet engines designed for model airplane use, i deliberately avoided the same reasons.

I didn't want any fallout from this project to affect legitimate users of similar technology.

Googling his name as author on all newsgroups, I found that heÂ’s also been actively debating his project on UK.Current-Events.Terrorism, Alt.Religion.Islam, Rec.Crafts.Metalworking, NZ.Politics, NZ.General, and Sci.Space.Tech, among others.

So what exactly did he build? There are more details here, some fairly troubling. The government of New Zealand admitted that he broke no laws, and even told him that it was ok to license his jet engine design to an Iranian aerospace company when he was approached with an offer. In his words:

However, out of curiosity I contacted relevent arm of the NZ government to ask what would be involved if someone wished to accept such a deal. I fully expected to be told that technology exports to Iran were prohibited -- particularly since the USA has classified that country as a sponsor of terrorism and has very strict bans on such technology transfers.

I was gobsmacked when the government came back to me and said there would be no problem with selling jet engine technology to Iran. I even asked again -- empahsizing that this technology had military application. They went away and came back with the same answer - it doesn't matter if it does have military application.

Once I'd picked my jaw up off the floor, I immediately contacted the NZ Secret Service (the SIS) and told them what had happened, handed over copies of the correspondence and queried that surely the government had gotten it wrong.

To my surprise, they didn't say it would be illegal either -- but they did suggest that such a transaction would not be recommended.

He goes on to say:

Even more incredible -- to this day, the advice given me in respect to such exports has not been rescinded. As far as I know, I could still sell military technology to Iran and not be in breach of the law.

It wasn’t until the United States publicly stated that his project was ‘unhelpful’ that the New Zealand government put the screws to Mr. Simpson. It appears that since NZ had already stated that no laws had been broken, they needed to find some other way to end his work. They then used the tried-and-true method of tax prosecution.

After reviewing his site and reading his various posts, I’ve come to the conclusion that the man is what he claims to be, an ordinary guy with an extraordinary plan to demonstrate the difficulties that we face trying to protect ourselves from modern weapons in the hands of terrorists. Obviously not dumb, I think he may have surprised some officials by actually succeeding where they saw no chance at all. ‘Too smart for his own good’ is a phrase that comes to mind.

He leaves this website as the means of contacting him.

Posted by: Ted at 09:25 AM | category: SciTech
No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 834 words, total size 5 kb.

Located west of Washington DC near Dulles International Airport, exhibits include the Enola Gay, the Enterprise space shuttle, the Concorde, an SR-71 Blackbird, Amelia Earhart's flight suit and various rockets, missiles, satellites, fighters and jetliners.

The annex is named for Steven F. Udvar-Hazy, a Hungarian immigrant who made a fortune in aircraft leasing. Udvar-Hazy pledged $60 million for the project in 1999, which was the Smithsonian's largest-ever individual donation at the time.

The original Air and Space Museum, which will remain open, is the most visited museum in the world, averaging 9 million guests a year. Both are free, though parking at the new facility costs $12.

I can't wait!

Posted by: Ted at 07:41 PM | category: SciTech
Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.