Its not a matter of comprehension, its a matter of world (er... univerise)-view. God put life here. God did not put life 'out there'.
Aside from any religious inferences, i see three possibilities for life 'out there', aside for any sort of 'contamination' earth-sent probes may have caused: 1. it is intentionally ignoring us. (meat talks?) 2. it is unintentionally ignoring us, ie, it dosen't have to capacity to not ignore us, and we don't know how to detect it. 3. it was there, but isn't anymore, or it will be there after we aren't any more.
And like a previous poster had said, until someone says (pointing) 'look, a martian!', this is all speculation.
It's probably something to do with the 'export' keyword. Microsoft's C++ compiler simply does not support it. The problem is that you cannot have a template definition seperate from its declaration (ie, you can't put the prototype in a.h and the implementation in a.cpp as you normally would, say with a class. There are ways around this, but they suck.) This is because every time you make use of a template, the compiler needs access to its implementation details. See the chapter on templates (13, I think) in 'The C++ Programming Language', 3rd ed, Bjarne Stroustrup.
I purchased the machine off of a friend, equiped it with a few spare hard drives, ram, and 2nd processor, and initially instaled linux 2.4 on it. Later, after concluding that there must be something better than linux/XFree86 became an OpenBSD box.
Of course, it still runs XFree86 (it really is a shame what happened to Be), but it also runs about 90% less stuff than linux.
I've considered helping out the OpenBSD team by contributing to the SMP code, but I just don't have the background, time, energy or interest right now.
Very true, I could do this. So why not? Because I don't actively run that computer. I used to muck around with it for C++-on-UNIX development, php development, and in general learning UNIX. Now I just use it to encode CDs to ogg (and this one time to build a library for a friend).
My main desktop computer is a WinXP box. I haven't found a UNIX-based OS that suits my needs as a desktop OS (I'd purchase a PowerBook today if I had an extra $3088).
Why wasn't Linux From Scratch on my list of things to try out when I was tyring things out? Simply because I didn't know about it. I got turned on to OpenBSD by a friend, tried the others, but stuck with OpenBSD. I ran 2.9 for a long time, upgraded to 3.0 for some feature that 2.9 lacked, and have stuck with it.
I do everything in monotype. You are not the first to complain. I find it easier to read. My only wish is that it be sans-serif.
Um.... OpenBSD has had ipv6 since May 19, 1999: http://www.openbsd.org/plus25.html
And even without SMP support, you have always been able to run OpenBSD on a dual-cpu x86. I've been running it on my dual p2-233 for two years now. Sure it only uses one processor, but for the time I want to put in to configuring it, I figure a secure box on one proc is better than an unsecure box on two.
And yes, I have checked out the other BSD projects. After trying linux for a year, I got sick of the bloat, and wanted to get as lean as possible. In my opinion, at the time OpenBSD (2.9, I think) was the cleanest.
I would really like to see someone write an article comparing the video editing abilites that come with a Windows machine comparted to those of a Mac.
I currently use WinXP pro on a dual P3 850 with a firewire card to do some very light-weight video editing. Basically, I convince one of my friends to film my hockey games, and then I review the film to see how I can improve. I also make clips for my team's web site to make it more interesting. I have no need for special effects or filters or anything of that sort: I just want to dump my video to my hard drive.
I've found Windows Movie Maker the easiest tool to get this done. There are only two things I could ask for: 1) Sound during the preview (which is solved by opening the LCD display on the camera, but still... if i can preview the video, why not the sound?) 2) More file formats. Currently, I can record only to uncompressed AVI, or a variety of WMV formats. Certainly this is WMM's weakest link. I guess this is just part of MS's embrace-extend-extinguish philosophy.
So what about a Mac? Out-of-the box, how would it do for a light-weight video capture/editing platform?
I think this is the real argument that must be addressed. Anyone can show that either platform is better than the other by carefully selecting the applications to run, so why not comare the basic abilities of the OSs? I suppose the real issue is that there is no standardized windows platform to compare a Mac against.
Anyways, the thoughts of you light-weight video editing Mac users (esp. those with the new PowerBooks) would interest me greatly.
Re:Did any one else notice...
on
Mac Case Mods
·
· Score: 1
First let me say that by no means am I a physists... I mostly blame this on my crappy professor, and the administration that will not replace him.
What about the other stationary magnet -- you know -- the Earth? Clearly the disk is also spinning within the Earth's magnetic field, which I think varies more significantly over time than the magnet in that speaker.
I suppose what it comes down to is that the magnet is simply not strong enough to distort the data on the disk. I realize that the platters are spinning at a high rate through a magnetic field, and that as a sector spins away from the magnet it will experience a different force than when it spins toward the magnet, unless the axel on which the drive spins is on the same line as the magnets poles. So, my question remains... so long as the magnetic field is stable, and the magnet and the drive are stationary relative to each other... what's the problem?
You may also find it interesting that the speaker in my case (Lian-Li PC-60) is mounted directly beneath my harddrives... I have not had a single problem with data loss/corruptuion in the year that this system has been running.
Re:Did any one else notice...
on
Mac Case Mods
·
· Score: 1
Could you exlpain to me why this is a problem?
Clearly if you wave a magnet about a magnetic storage device, you are suspect to manipulation of the information stored therein, but I think that a stationary magnet (or otherwise stable magnetic field) would have no effect on a hard drive... provided that the field is uniform about each platter.
So, I suppose there would be some issues installing the drive, but once everthing is there, what's the problem?
Um... no.
Taking the 3 seconds to type '"the tick"' into my google bar produces this website... taking the 3 more seconds to click on that link, then on Arthur's picture, then 3 more seconds to read to breif bio reveals that Arthur indeed is a moth, and not a rabbit, or rather a bunny as the site states.
Re:Don't bitch about lack of Apple LCDs
on
LCD Round-up
·
· Score: 1, Informative
For $1000 you get not just an extra inch, but also 200 cd/m^2 vs. 180 cd/m^2 in brightness, (that's a good 10%) 350:1 vs. 300:1 in Contrast ratio (15%), and the most important part: the 23 inch is a high-definition (HD) display.
If you haven't yet, I suggest you make a trip to your nearest Apple retailer to see the difference in real life. I'd be willing to buy one right now for my PC if I knew it would work... but I highly doubt there is a VGA to ADC adapter.
what happens if x + y overflows? how are you going to handle that?
This solution is most certainly wrong, whereas the XOR solution (ie, replace all your +'s and -'s with ^'s -- or whaterver your XOR operator happens to be) is most certailny the correct solution.
Surprisingly it's not slashdotted--there must be big pipes behind it. I didn't try loading any mp3's.
Just viewing the site launched endless popup ad windows some of which resized themselves to fill the whole screen, popped more windows when you closed the old ones, etc.
hmm... for me the site is working just fine as well, but I have yet to encounter any pop-up/under ads. Could have the ad servers could been slashdotted, yet the main site survived? Could this be a new use for the/. effect?
"The Audio CD Standard was set sometime back in the 70's. Then, it was decided that the record should rotate with different speeds, depending on where on the record the data was read, to get a constant data transfer rate. The method is named CLV (Constant Linear Velocity), or constant transfer rate. The transfer rate of an audio CD is a mere 176 kB/s, and to reach this rate the record only has to spin with 530 rpm when reading the innermost track, and 200 rpm for the outer track. ...To be able to publish ever increasing spin ratios, many manufacturers have resorted to CAV (Constant Angular Velocity), a method whereby the record is not rotated faster when reading inner tracks. Thus they can specify impressive spin ratios for outer tracks and sell more, but in reality the spin ratio for the inner tracks is only 37.7% of this value"
So, much like hard drive manufactures report GB in Billions of bytes, rather than bytes^20, and in terms of unformatted capacity, it seems CDROM maufactures fudge the standard a litte for better PR.
If you knew your Tolkien, you would recognize that the writing is a portion of the inscription on the ring. I don't know what the portion translates to, nor what exactly is on the ring for that matter (though I suspect it to be the poem we all know and produce spoofs of).
Also notice that the writing dosen't contain itsself to Frodo's cloak, but extends slightly to his shirt. It also does not follow the contours of the cloak's folds.
I bought a cheap dual processor system back in 1999, and have been using it as my home computer ever since. The mother board is a Tyan Tiger 100 ($160), revision F, and I equipped it with two P3-500's ($240/ea.). At the time this was much cheaper than a single processor board ($100? - i don't really know), with the fastest P3 available (above $650, if memory serves), so I considered it a good buy.
I initially ran win98 on it. Win98 didn't complain about the two cpus; in fact, I don't think it was even aware of them. It just used the cpu in the first slot, and went about its business. I don't know if this is somehow bad for the hardware, but it seemd to work okay.
Then I got my hands of Win2K through one of those usability studies that Microsoft does (I great way to get MS software in my opinion, if you're into MS software). I immediately noticed a performance gain. Not over the win98 setup, becasue I don't think the two compare well, but over other computers at my school that were of about the same specs, excepting of course, that mine was dual-cpu, and the others were single. There was not really an improvement in speed (if you want that, get a faster hard drive interface, IMHO -- this is not to say that 2 cpus are not faster than one, I do get better framerates in games under win2k than win98, but that its not twice as fast as some may think), but a significant increase in robustness. I found that if you want to do a lot of things at once (say, opening many progams all at once: eg, at startup), it would be better handled by an SMP machine than by a computer with a much faster processor. Also, if one task is stuck in an infinite loop, only one processor is killed, and the other is free so your UI thread is availbe to kill the offending task. Or if you have many applications open at once, and only one is doing anything (say you are downloading hella warez with irc, hotline, limewire, etc, you've got winamp blasting tunes, an email client open, anti-virus scanner active, and maybe a ftp and ssh server running, but you're playing Unreal Tournament online with your self -- no network, cant steal bandwidth from the warez -- one cpu can be doing all the "background" tasks, and the other can be working on your game. I've vound that there is simply no competition from single cpu systems in this regard; duals simply blow them out of the water.
I have not had the fortune of using a computer with more modern hardware, so I cannot compare it to, say a 1 Ghz machine, but I bet that mine would be slower in gerneral. But I also bet that mine would handle heavy loads better. So, if you do run NT[5|4.0|3.5] or XP Pro, and if you consistantly stress out the cpu, or you just don't like things hanging up, I'd be you'd like a (even if its a bit slower to save money) dual cpu system.
there are different sizes of infinity, but you can't just figure out how large the size of infinity that you are dealing with by counting.
an example of this can be seen with the different sets of numbers.
for instance, take the whole numbers (ie anything that's 1 or greater that has no fractional part). there is an infinite amount of them. if you take just the whole numbers that are evenly divisible by 2, do you get a smaller size of infinity? no, you don't. its still the same size (to mathematicians).
now, look at the real numbers. these are the ones that can be represented in decimal form. (so 2.5, -9, 1/3, but not pi, or sqrt(2)) this set of numbers has a larger size of infinity than the whole numbers. why? well, for one, for any two whole numbers, there is an infinite amount of real numbers between them. for example between 1 and 2 you have 1.1, 1.11, 1.111, 1.1111... you get the idea.
what stops the government from saying: "Damnit, Microsoft. You screwed up big time. Here's your punishment and it's *FINAL*. No debating this." is due process of law. without such a process the government could charge anyone with any thing and get away with it, at least until the people rebel. with such a process you get death row inmates running up in think it is 20 years (or is it 50?) of appeals expenses. like it or not, it's how the system works.
when does the french government need to use a software DVD player? it seems to me that the french government would use office tools - spread sheets, word processors, finanicial programs, and date organizers - and not entertainment tools - dvd players, mp3 players, etc. what about component pieces? if the french government absolutely needed to watch a dvd, they don't need to use a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not a matter of comprehension, its a matter of world (er... univerise)-view. God put life here. God did not put life 'out there'.
Aside from any religious inferences, i see three possibilities for life 'out there', aside for any sort of 'contamination' earth-sent probes may have caused:
1. it is intentionally ignoring us. (meat talks?)
2. it is unintentionally ignoring us, ie, it dosen't have to capacity to not ignore us, and we don't know how to detect it.
3. it was there, but isn't anymore, or it will be there after we aren't any more.
And like a previous poster had said, until someone says (pointing) 'look, a martian!', this is all speculation.
It's probably something to do with the 'export' keyword. Microsoft's C++ compiler simply does not support it. .h and the implementation in a .cpp as you normally would, say with a class. There are ways around this, but they suck.) This is because every time you make use of a template, the compiler needs access to its implementation details. See the chapter on templates (13, I think) in 'The C++ Programming Language', 3rd ed, Bjarne Stroustrup.
The problem is that you cannot have a template definition seperate from its declaration (ie, you can't put the prototype in a
You mean a 'Bro'.
And might as well trade in that Executive for something with a belt while you at it.
There's a very subtle but important difference between knowing where something is on a map, and actually going there to plant your flag on the find.
As far as I'm concerned, these wrecks are still up for grabs.
That is a very good and valid point.
I purchased the machine off of a friend, equiped it with a few spare hard drives, ram, and 2nd processor, and initially instaled linux 2.4 on it. Later, after concluding that there must be something better than linux/XFree86 became an OpenBSD box.
Of course, it still runs XFree86 (it really is a shame what happened to Be), but it also runs about 90% less stuff than linux.
I've considered helping out the OpenBSD team by contributing to the SMP code, but I just don't have the background, time, energy or interest right now.
Very true, I could do this.
So why not? Because I don't actively run that computer. I used to muck around with it for C++-on-UNIX development, php development, and in general learning UNIX. Now I just use it to encode CDs to ogg (and this one time to build a library for a friend).
My main desktop computer is a WinXP box. I haven't found a UNIX-based OS that suits my needs as a desktop OS (I'd purchase a PowerBook today if I had an extra $3088).
Why wasn't Linux From Scratch on my list of things to try out when I was tyring things out? Simply because I didn't know about it. I got turned on to OpenBSD by a friend, tried the others, but stuck with OpenBSD. I ran 2.9 for a long time, upgraded to 3.0 for some feature that 2.9 lacked, and have stuck with it.
I do everything in monotype. You are not the first to complain. I find it easier to read. My only wish is that it be sans-serif.
Um.... OpenBSD has had ipv6 since May 19, 1999: http://www.openbsd.org/plus25.html
And even without SMP support, you have always been able to run OpenBSD on a dual-cpu x86. I've been running it on my dual p2-233 for two years now. Sure it only uses one processor, but for the time I want to put in to configuring it, I figure a secure box on one proc is better than an unsecure box on two.
And yes, I have checked out the other BSD projects. After trying linux for a year, I got sick of the bloat, and wanted to get as lean as possible. In my opinion, at the time OpenBSD (2.9, I think) was the cleanest.
I would really like to see someone write an article comparing the video editing abilites that come with a Windows machine comparted to those of a Mac.
I currently use WinXP pro on a dual P3 850 with a firewire card to do some very light-weight video editing. Basically, I convince one of my friends to film my hockey games, and then I review the film to see how I can improve. I also make clips for my team's web site to make it more interesting. I have no need for special effects or filters or anything of that sort: I just want to dump my video to my hard drive.
I've found Windows Movie Maker the easiest tool to get this done. There are only two things I could ask for:
1) Sound during the preview (which is solved by opening the LCD display on the camera, but still... if i can preview the video, why not the sound?)
2) More file formats. Currently, I can record only to uncompressed AVI, or a variety of WMV formats. Certainly this is WMM's weakest link. I guess this is just part of MS's embrace-extend-extinguish philosophy.
So what about a Mac? Out-of-the box, how would it do for a light-weight video capture/editing platform?
I think this is the real argument that must be addressed. Anyone can show that either platform is better than the other by carefully selecting the applications to run, so why not comare the basic abilities of the OSs? I suppose the real issue is that there is no standardized windows platform to compare a Mac against.
Anyways, the thoughts of you light-weight video editing Mac users (esp. those with the new PowerBooks) would interest me greatly.
First let me say that by no means am I a physists... I mostly blame this on my crappy professor, and the administration that will not replace him.
What about the other stationary magnet -- you know -- the Earth? Clearly the disk is also spinning within the Earth's magnetic field, which I think varies more significantly over time than the magnet in that speaker.
I suppose what it comes down to is that the magnet is simply not strong enough to distort the data on the disk. I realize that the platters are spinning at a high rate through a magnetic field, and that as a sector spins away from the magnet it will experience a different force than when it spins toward the magnet, unless the axel on which the drive spins is on the same line as the magnets poles. So, my question remains... so long as the magnetic field is stable, and the magnet and the drive are stationary relative to each other... what's the problem?
You may also find it interesting that the speaker in my case (Lian-Li PC-60) is mounted directly beneath my harddrives... I have not had a single problem with data loss/corruptuion in the year that this system has been running.
Could you exlpain to me why this is a problem?
Clearly if you wave a magnet about a magnetic storage device, you are suspect to manipulation of the information stored therein, but I think that a stationary magnet (or otherwise stable magnetic field) would have no effect on a hard drive... provided that the field is uniform about each platter.
So, I suppose there would be some issues installing the drive, but once everthing is there, what's the problem?
Um... no. Taking the 3 seconds to type '"the tick"' into my google bar produces this website... taking the 3 more seconds to click on that link, then on Arthur's picture, then 3 more seconds to read to breif bio reveals that Arthur indeed is a moth, and not a rabbit, or rather a bunny as the site states.
Then is it any wonder why 'The Tick' was doomed for failure?
Well... I suppose technically Arthur was dressed as a moth, but that's damned close enough for me.
You must not meet many healty women.
For $1000 you get not just an extra inch, but also 200 cd/m^2 vs. 180 cd/m^2 in brightness, (that's a good 10%) 350:1 vs. 300:1 in Contrast ratio (15%), and the most important part: the 23 inch is a high-definition (HD) display.
If you haven't yet, I suggest you make a trip to your nearest Apple retailer to see the difference in real life. I'd be willing to buy one right now for my PC if I knew it would work... but I highly doubt there is a VGA to ADC adapter.
Am I the only one that read 'Little People' as 'midgets'?
Why are little people being patented? Has human cloning progressed to the point that there is a lucrative industry in creating mini yous and me?
um..... no.
what happens if x + y overflows? how are you going to handle that?
This solution is most certainly wrong, whereas the XOR solution (ie, replace all your +'s and -'s with ^'s -- or whaterver your XOR operator happens to be) is most certailny the correct solution.
hmm... for me the site is working just fine as well, but I have yet to encounter any pop-up/under ads.
Could have the ad servers could been slashdotted, yet the main site survived?
Could this be a new use for the
If you knew your Tolkien, you would recognize that the writing is a portion of the inscription on the ring. I don't know what the portion translates to, nor what exactly is on the ring for that matter (though I suspect it to be the poem we all know and produce spoofs of).
Also notice that the writing dosen't contain itsself to Frodo's cloak, but extends slightly to his shirt. It also does not follow the contours of the cloak's folds.
I bought a cheap dual processor system back in 1999, and have been using it as my home computer ever since. The mother board is a Tyan Tiger 100 ($160), revision F, and I equipped it with two P3-500's ($240/ea.). At the time this was much cheaper than a single processor board ($100? - i don't really know), with the fastest P3 available (above $650, if memory serves), so I considered it a good buy.
I initially ran win98 on it. Win98 didn't complain about the two cpus; in fact, I don't think it was even aware of them. It just used the cpu in the first slot, and went about its business. I don't know if this is somehow bad for the hardware, but it seemd to work okay.
Then I got my hands of Win2K through one of those usability studies that Microsoft does (I great way to get MS software in my opinion, if you're into MS software). I immediately noticed a performance gain. Not over the win98 setup, becasue I don't think the two compare well, but over other computers at my school that were of about the same specs, excepting of course, that mine was dual-cpu, and the others were single. There was not really an improvement in speed (if you want that, get a faster hard drive interface, IMHO -- this is not to say that 2 cpus are not faster than one, I do get better framerates in games under win2k than win98, but that its not twice as fast as some may think), but a significant increase in robustness. I found that if you want to do a lot of things at once (say, opening many progams all at once: eg, at startup), it would be better handled by an SMP machine than by a computer with a much faster processor. Also, if one task is stuck in an infinite loop, only one processor is killed, and the other is free so your UI thread is availbe to kill the offending task. Or if you have many applications open at once, and only one is doing anything (say you are downloading hella warez with irc, hotline, limewire, etc, you've got winamp blasting tunes, an email client open, anti-virus scanner active, and maybe a ftp and ssh server running, but you're playing Unreal Tournament online with your self -- no network, cant steal bandwidth from the warez -- one cpu can be doing all the "background" tasks, and the other can be working on your game. I've vound that there is simply no competition from single cpu systems in this regard; duals simply blow them out of the water.
I have not had the fortune of using a computer with more modern hardware, so I cannot compare it to, say a 1 Ghz machine, but I bet that mine would be slower in gerneral. But I also bet that mine would handle heavy loads better. So, if you do run NT[5|4.0|3.5] or XP Pro, and if you consistantly stress out the cpu, or you just don't like things hanging up, I'd be you'd like a (even if its a bit slower to save money) dual cpu system.
so, did you moderate yourself here or are the moderators really that hard up for star wars?
you are close, but not right one.
there are different sizes of infinity, but you can't just figure out how large the size of infinity that you are dealing with by counting.
an example of this can be seen with the different sets of numbers.
for instance, take the whole numbers (ie anything that's 1 or greater that has no fractional part). there is an infinite amount of them. if you take just the whole numbers that are evenly divisible by 2, do you get a smaller size of infinity? no, you don't. its still the same size (to mathematicians).
now, look at the real numbers. these are the ones that can be represented in decimal form. (so 2.5, -9, 1/3, but not pi, or sqrt(2)) this set of numbers has a larger size of infinity than the whole numbers. why? well, for one, for any two whole numbers, there is an infinite amount of real numbers between them. for example between 1 and 2 you have 1.1, 1.11, 1.111, 1.1111... you get the idea.
i hope i got that right.
Hey baby, wana piece of my DeCSS?
what stops the government from saying: "Damnit, Microsoft. You screwed up big time. Here's your punishment and it's *FINAL*. No debating this." is due process of law. without such a process the government could charge anyone with any thing and get away with it, at least until the people rebel. with such a process you get death row inmates running up in think it is 20 years (or is it 50?) of appeals expenses. like it or not, it's how the system works.
when does the french government need to use a software DVD player? it seems to me that the french government would use office tools - spread sheets, word processors, finanicial programs, and date organizers - and not entertainment tools - dvd players, mp3 players, etc. what about component pieces? if the french government absolutely needed to watch a dvd, they don't need to use a computer.