Well, I guess I don't get the distinction between "sci-fi" and "science fiction" any more than I would see a diff between Hi-fi and "high fidelity", thought I suppose one could be a "stereo" and the other is "good sound". (So, the shorter one can be "nouned"? Don't think that applies here!)
I certainly don't get Farscape. It's not Sci-Fi anymore than Friends is a soap or Charlie's Angels was "crime drama". They're all comedy.
Just like Andromeda.
SG-1 is pretty damn funny too.
Colonel Jack O'Neil: Hey, Carter, thought you might like to watch a movie, so we got Star Wars. Teal'c here has seen it like, what, eight...
Teal'c: Nine.
O'Neil:...nine times, so it must be good!
Capt. Samantha Carter: [long pause] thinking [to O'Neil] You mean...you've never seen Star Wars?
Beta was superior in ONE WAY: it had slightly better quality.
nope, sorry.
BetaMAX had: 1.) "U" loading (220 degrees of turns) instead of "M" loading (~500 degrees), so
. lower tape tension, and
. video effects for "scanning" forward and reverse, and
. full speed REW and FF with the tape engaged on the heads so you could have a real-time counter.
2.) a higher write speed (better picture)
3.) the even helical scan tracks were 7 degrees off pitch one way and the odd ones were 7 degrees the other, so less video crosstalk without having to leave buffer space like VHS (which wasted tape) so Beta could have a smaller cassette. (Total recording time was a constant race that became irrelavant at the 5+ hour mark for most people.)
yes, most machines caught up on 1.), eventually, but that was after VHS was way ahead, thanks mostly to cheaper machines made by many manufacturers because JVC was first** to licence.
** I have 2, two, SANYO Beta VCRs...
later came superbeta, then VHS HQ (mostly signal filters), then S-VHS, then ED-beta (Broadcast quality).
"As someone once said, that's the great thing about standards, there are so many of them."
The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
--Admiral Grace Hopper or Andrew Tannenbaum?[A]
[A] It appears the saying even applies to itself! Andrew Tannenbaum wrote this in both editions of Computer Networks, the first of which was published in 1981. However, some evidence indicates that Admiral Hopper first said this in the late 1970s, and the saying is attributed to her by The Unix-Haters Handbook. Tim Salo posed the question on the IETF mailing list in September 1994, and he received a variety of responses, which are summarized at major mailing list archives. (Among many other locations, his summary is archived at this link.)
There are also multiple methodologies and approaches for software design that WHEN IMPLEMENTED actually mitigate most of the problems.
David Lorge Parnas and Paul C. Clements, "A Rational Design Process and How to Fake It", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-12, No. 2, February 1986, pp. 251 -- 257.
http://chacs.nrl.navy.mil/publications/a7/misc/f ak e-it [troff]
http://chacs.nrl.navy.mil/publications/a7/misc/f ak e-it.ps
Hey, if it weren't possible, planes wouldn't fly...
But we don't use Kb, MB, Gb (etc.) always as powers of 2. Data transfer rates are by powers of 10. (A 28.8 Kbps modem is not 29491 bps). Disk space is done both ways, so it _is_ confusing. Gibibytes and Tebibytes may never be mainstream (or properly understood) but I believe the IEC, IEEE, NIST and ISO have already accepted the "new" prefixes, so we may as well get used to them.
I work at a synchrotron facility that will go online in 3 years and the beamlines people tell me that the protein crystallography guys take data at 150 MB/s, or 1 TB/2 h. By the time we are supplying beam, it'll be 4 TB/h or ~100 TB/day!
Now where the heck am I suppose to cache that?!
> Maybe internet access should be entirely funded
> by the government just like public roads and
> highways.
Maybe only the people who want internet should pay for it. Just like many (all?) roads.
> Besides, society benefits as a whole from
> increased communication.
You can make the "society benefits" argument for damn near anything.
Why not free fruits and vegetables, then "medicare" costs would be lower.
I just love all the lame excuses people have to steal my labour (i.e. money).
As it is I work almost over 5 months of the year for the government's stupid
ideas for wasting my cash.
I'll donate to the causes I believe in thank you very much. Just give
me clean drinking water and leave the rest to us.
Actually, that's what the term "IP telephony" is for, referring to only that specific subset of H.323, which is the "Voice over IP" stuff. I think H.320 is ISDN voice and H.324 is voice over POTS.
Um, you can still buy TechNet subscriptions , now also on DVD, and I find they are still more useful than the web version unless it's a very new problem or product. Plus, you get all the resource kits (no books) on disc, along with every service pack and hot fix. As long as I'm being forced to support M$ products, I'm glad there is TechNet.
Let's not forget that MS spent untold $$$$$$ paying developers to write IE browser code only to _give_the_product_away_ SIMPLY TO DRIVE NETSCAPE UNDER. There was no way Netscape could compete when MS was the only company getting revenue from an OS at the same time. Monopoly power in one arena was used to crush any and all competition in a new one.
That written, most of the blame lies with consumers who bitch but don't care enough to act or learn.
``Squeezing more and more devices onto a chip means
fabricating features that are smaller and smaller. The
industry's newest chips have "pitches" as small as 180
nanometers (billionths of a meter). To accommodate
Moore's Law, according to the biennial "road map"
prepared last year for the Semiconductor Industry
Association, the pitches need to shrink to 150 nanometers
by 2001 and to 100 nanometers by 2005. Alas, the road
map admitted, to get there the industry will have to beat
fundamental problems to which there are "no known
solutions."''
"No known solutions"? In "10 nm Process?"
IBM is said to be working on much smaller sizes, so
we should not be quick to cry "End of Moore's Law!" (i.e. "wolf!")
once again...
10 nm by 2010 (or even 2015) is still on track with "100
nm by 2005"...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I guess I don't get the distinction between "sci-fi" and "science fiction" any more than I would see a diff between Hi-fi and "high fidelity", thought I suppose one could be a "stereo" and the other is "good sound". (So, the shorter one can be "nouned"? Don't think that applies here!)
...nine times, so it must be good!
I certainly don't get Farscape. It's not Sci-Fi anymore than Friends is a soap or Charlie's Angels was "crime drama". They're all comedy.
Just like Andromeda.
SG-1 is pretty damn funny too.
Colonel Jack O'Neil: Hey, Carter, thought you might like to watch a movie, so we got Star Wars. Teal'c here has seen it like, what, eight...
Teal'c: Nine.
O'Neil:
Capt. Samantha Carter: [long pause] thinking [to O'Neil] You mean...you've never seen Star Wars?
O'Neil: Well, you know me and Sci-Fi.
Maybe it's all comedy...
Beta was superior in ONE WAY: it had slightly better quality.
nope, sorry.
BetaMAX had:
1.) "U" loading (220 degrees of turns) instead of "M" loading (~500 degrees), so
. lower tape tension, and
. video effects for "scanning" forward and reverse, and
. full speed REW and FF with the tape engaged on the heads so you could have a real-time counter.
2.) a higher write speed (better picture)
3.) the even helical scan tracks were 7 degrees off pitch one way and the odd ones were 7 degrees the other, so less video crosstalk without having to leave buffer space like VHS (which wasted tape) so Beta could have a smaller cassette. (Total recording time was a constant race that became irrelavant at the 5+ hour mark for most people.)
yes, most machines caught up on 1.), eventually, but that was after VHS was way ahead, thanks mostly to cheaper machines made by many manufacturers because JVC was first** to licence.
** I have 2, two, SANYO Beta VCRs...
later came superbeta, then VHS HQ (mostly signal filters), then S-VHS, then ED-beta (Broadcast quality).
fun.
They're not bugs, they're design flaws. That's worse.
--
Go ahead. Mod me down. See if I care.
The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. --Admiral Grace Hopper or Andrew Tannenbaum?[A]
[A] It appears the saying even applies to itself! Andrew Tannenbaum wrote this in both editions of Computer Networks, the first of which was published in 1981. However, some evidence indicates that Admiral Hopper first said this in the late 1970s, and the saying is attributed to her by The Unix-Haters Handbook. Tim Salo posed the question on the IETF mailing list in September 1994, and he received a variety of responses, which are summarized at major mailing list archives. (Among many other locations, his summary is archived at this link.)
credit: this link
"Lux Interior" must have a boss.
1. tell him/her how much a central server and backup (tape, DVD burner, whatever) will cost.
2. Ask him what s/he think the loss of "work product" will cost in terms of time, liability, etc.
3. tell him/her how much time it will take to set up and how much time it will save everyone.
Shouldn't take much more than that.
With the Google toolbar http://toolbar.google.com/ and Vivisimo http://vivisimo.com/ as my home page, I really don't spend time on anything else.
There are also multiple methodologies and approaches for software design that WHEN IMPLEMENTED actually mitigate most of the problems.
f ak e-it [troff]
f ak e-it.ps
David Lorge Parnas and Paul C. Clements, "A Rational Design Process and How to Fake It", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-12, No. 2, February 1986, pp. 251 -- 257.
http://chacs.nrl.navy.mil/publications/a7/misc/
http://chacs.nrl.navy.mil/publications/a7/misc/
Hey, if it weren't possible, planes wouldn't fly...
But we don't use Kb, MB, Gb (etc.) always as powers of 2. Data transfer rates are by powers of 10. (A 28.8 Kbps modem is not 29491 bps). Disk space is done both ways, so it _is_ confusing. Gibibytes and Tebibytes may never be mainstream (or properly understood) but I believe the IEC, IEEE, NIST and ISO have already accepted the "new" prefixes, so we may as well get used to them.
I work at a synchrotron facility that will go online in 3 years and the beamlines people tell me that the protein crystallography guys take data at 150 MB/s, or 1 TB/2 h. By the time we are supplying beam, it'll be 4 TB/h or ~100 TB/day! Now where the heck am I suppose to cache that?!
> Maybe internet access should be entirely funded
> by the government just like public roads and
> highways.
Maybe only the people who want internet should pay for it. Just like many (all?) roads.
> Besides, society benefits as a whole from
> increased communication.
You can make the "society benefits" argument for damn near anything.
Why not free fruits and vegetables, then "medicare" costs would be lower.
I just love all the lame excuses people have to steal my labour (i.e. money).
As it is I work almost over 5 months of the year for the government's stupid
ideas for wasting my cash.
I'll donate to the causes I believe in thank you very much. Just give
me clean drinking water and leave the rest to us.
Actually, that's what the term "IP telephony" is for, referring to only that specific subset of H.323, which is the "Voice over IP" stuff. I think H.320 is ISDN voice and H.324 is voice over POTS.
Um, you can still buy TechNet subscriptions , now also on DVD, and I find they are still more useful than the web version unless it's a very new problem or product. Plus, you get all the resource kits (no books) on disc, along with every service pack and hot fix. As long as I'm being forced to support M$ products, I'm glad there is TechNet.
Doesn't launching rockets speed up the rotation? :)
Let's not forget that MS spent untold $$$$$$ paying developers to write IE browser code only to _give_the_product_away_ SIMPLY TO DRIVE NETSCAPE UNDER. There was no way Netscape could compete when MS was the only company getting revenue from an OS at the same time. Monopoly power in one arena was used to crush any and all competition in a new one.
That written, most of the blame lies with consumers who bitch but don't care enough to act or learn.
--
"No known solutions"? In "10 nm Process?" IBM is said to be working on much smaller sizes, so we should not be quick to cry "End of Moore's Law!" (i.e. "wolf!") once again...
10 nm by 2010 (or even 2015) is still on track with "100 nm by 2005"...
--
Um, there is also the "go" menu at the top of Navigator...
--