Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #10637
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: "Sathe Dilip" sathe_dilip@bah.com
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:46:01 -0500
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Batteries
Does it have a sticker? What is the information on that sticker?
Sometimes you can make sense out of the model code numbers on
batteries. Motorola's web site may have some info too.
Dilip
-------------------------------------------------
Seamus Allan wrote:
>
> Hello to all...
>
> I just got given the inside of a Startak cellphone (I was looking for the
> vibrtor motor), when I found the battery. It is a 3.6V Lithium Ion
> Rechargeable battery. I am unsure of its current capacity, and was wondering
> if it would be any good for anything, and if so, can I charge it in the same
> way as a NiCd or NiMH???
>
> Any help would be appreciated,
>
> Seamus Allan
>
> seamus_allan@inet.net.nz
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
10638 Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:46:44 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization "Dennison Bertram"
>
> Then a natural question would be : !why! do we want these machines? What
> problems are they going to solve? What tasks are they going to perform?
How
> are they going to augment the premises of what we do? How are they going
to
> make our lives easier and better?
>
Why should they make our lives easyier? Who said they had any purpose to
solve? We do this because we do, and almost because we are destined to do
so. For some reason that seems to be specifically something humanity does
alone.
>
> At times we seem to have a blind faith that technology in itself will
solve
> all of our problems. If we could just get faster computation we could make
a
> neural net that would be just as complex as our brain. Technology has
never
> solved !any! problem on its own. It is the application of technology that
> solves problems.
>
We really aren't trying to solve problems. Sure, we use excuses like UXO
detection and other such things, like meterite finding, but there's
something else about all this that really drives us.
> > It may well be that the created must inherently create.
Exactly.
> > One could go
> > so far as to say that we exist in order to create a more viable
> > form.
Reproduction, evolution, and natural selection baby.
. I wonder at times if a robot will someday, in the far
> > future, write a note to a list asking whether it is a good idea
> > to create a
> > biological lifeform that emulates mechanical life :).
It's possible.
>
> If you are to suggest that we as a biological phenomenon are to replace
> ourselves with an alternate organism - electronic or biological - I'd
reckon
> we would be just about the only creatures to do so ever. In the entire
> universe.
Perhaps, I'm reading a book about just that right now. The author postulates
that for awhile robots and people will co--exist, but as robots continue to
evolve as high rates of speed, they will eventually replace us. Perhaps this
is bad? Perhaps. The author argues that the machines will be our children.
And it's our destiney for us to create them. And they will cary the human
legacy far beyond what we could have ever done ourselves.
so, se va'. The end is comming. If not tommorow, then someday. The rest of
time is an awfull lot of time to work with.
dennison
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas
>
>
Home