I had an oldish ATI 7500 on my wife's box. Tried to upgrade her to a 9600 (I forget which particular 9600 - doesn't matter). I couldn't get the ATI accelerated drivers to work at all, so I had slower performance with the new card. A Tale in the Desert went from a bit anoyingly slow to unplayable in Linux (SuSe 9.0).
A broke down and bought an NVidia 5200, which I know isn't near the top of the line, but is quite adequate. In theory not as nice a card as the ATI 9600 I had. But the NVidia works. I've still got the ATI 9600 sitting on the shelf.
I was amused to note on the product page, that it includes free software to magnify things by 200% so that they are large enough so that you can see them, thus emulating monitors that are 1/4 the price. I could buy one of those 1/4-price monitors and do the same without the software.:-)
Yes, I'm aware that I've stated it with a bit of a slant. Still. Heck, I find the usual fonts a bit small at 100dpi - probably just my old eyes, but they are the only ones I have.
FL 600 is a bit high, but not so much as seems to be implied here. No a current Lear can't make 600 (at least I don't think they can - didn't bother to look it up), but it isn't that awfully ludicrous.
You don't perhaps think that FL 600 means 600,000 feet (or meters, or whatever), do you? It is 60,000 feet.
Well, except for on April 1, but they only lasted the one day (and couldn't be used on other players). Great April fools joke that was, and a lot of work. (RodneyRedhot in game).
If you do intend to go, you might note that, while the cited 9:30 ET time is corect, the launch site is not on Eastern time. Might be easy to miss that and assume that the cited time is launch site local. If you arrive at 9:30 local time, it will be long over.:-(
I'm betting that you don't have any experience with those error code gismos. Either that or they've changed in the last few years.
Last time I checked, the codes latched. Once they flagged a problem, the code would remain until reset. Just fixing the problem (i.e. tightening the cap) would not reset the code. Heck, you wouldn't want the code to reset itself if it detected some intermittent problem that wouldn't nicely repeat itself when taken to the mechanic.
Mind you, I agree with those who note that 12 times seems a bit much, but I think some people are a bit fast to criticise when they don't actually understand the circumstances.
This is "insightful"? I see a lot of sophmoric profanity, but no insight. Or does sufficient profanity equate to insight these days? I wonder if the poster even bothered to read the rest of the article. In case he didn't...
Just because the check engine light indicated a loose gas cap one time, or even several times, that doesn't mean that the next time means the same thing. It might mean something serious. There is no way for Ms. Seymour to tell. Nor is there anyway for 3rd partly mechanics to tell. That was sort of the whole point of the article.
Yeah. I once spent about 15 minutes researching an implausible-sounding statistic related to this that someone had quoted from Rush. When he isn't just plain lying, he uses statistics carefully crafted to give misimpressions. In particular...
He had a statistic about the amount of forested area in the US actually increasing by some significant percentage over a period of a few decades. In trying to figure out any way that this might actually be true, I realized that the decades in question covered the time when Alaska became a state. A brief check of an Almanac showed that Alaska accounted for the claimed growth and quite a lot more. Factoring that in, it was clear that the same statistic showed a pretty alarming rate of destruction.
Guess we just need to annex Brazil to keep the trend going.:-(
After that? Mars maybe? Can we somehow count Mars as all forested?:-)
If said PHB forms opinions based solely on what textbooks say, then perhaps he or she should consider getting an education instead of learning to play parrot.
The purpose of education is not to just listen carefully and recite back whatever is fed to you, but to learn to think and evaluate things yourself.
Alas, I know many so-called teachers who don't understand this (and others, such as my eldest son, who I think get it really well.)
It will take a lot of heat, but not that much. Not Mach 7... or even 4. In fact, what I hear from people who would know (and who are a lot better sources than anything on Discovery channel - some of them have flown it) is that the speed is heat-limited instead of thrust-limited.
Yes, it eventually would run out of thrust (and long before Mach 7), but it would have heat problems first. If I recall correctly (but I'm not as sure of that part), it is the engines that first run into overheating problems.
P.S. Don't believe every rumor you here just because it sounds good to put down what "they" tell you. "They" don't always tell you the truth, but then neither do the people who tell you that "they" are lying.
And one of the main reasons that the SR can't go that fast (well, beside the fact that it wouldn't be able to take the heat) is *DIRECTLY* related to the whole point of scramjets.
The SR is a ramjet (well, it is a multi-mode engine, but we'll skip over that part). The extra sc in scramjet is for supersonic combustion, which is the whole tricky point. If you have to slow the intake air down to subsonic speeds for the combustion, you are fighting a loosing battle as the vehicle speeds go up. Ramjets like the SR are not practical at hypersonic speeds.
The Fortran 95 standard (which I was editor of) was done in Frame (not by my choice, but I went along) and Fortran 2003 started out in Frame. Adobe dropped their Linux plans just about at the same time as when access to Sun platforms was getting less convenient for me, my desktop having switched to Linux some time before. (I've now got a Mac OSX box in the center of the desk, with the Linux box still here, but on the side).
Adobe's dropping of the Linux product plans wasn't the only reason that we stopped using Frame, but it was a major factor. Some annoying bugs (even in the supported Solaris version), a user interface that probably was a major contributor to my wrist problems, and of course, the cost and proprietary business - those were all also factors. But the Linux issue was probably number one (well, the fact that we got a volunteer to do the Frame to LaTeX conversion was also pretty major).
I liked the part about how the "customer can switch the doors back to transparent at the touch of a switch, exposing themselves to onlookers waiting outside the room."
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we have no bananas.
I had an oldish ATI 7500 on my wife's box. Tried to upgrade her to a 9600 (I forget which particular 9600 - doesn't matter). I couldn't get the ATI accelerated drivers to work at all, so I had slower performance with the new card. A Tale in the Desert went from a bit anoyingly slow to unplayable in Linux (SuSe 9.0).
A broke down and bought an NVidia 5200, which I know isn't near the top of the line, but is quite adequate. In theory not as nice a card as the ATI 9600 I had. But the NVidia works. I've still got the ATI 9600 sitting on the shelf.
I was amused to note on the product page, that it includes free software to magnify things by 200% so that they are large enough so that you can see them, thus emulating monitors that are 1/4 the price. I could buy one of those 1/4-price monitors and do the same without the software. :-)
Yes, I'm aware that I've stated it with a bit of a slant. Still. Heck, I find the usual fonts a bit small at 100dpi - probably just my old eyes, but they are the only ones I have.
Surprised nobody yet has cited the old pilot saying...
:-)
"Any landing that you can walk away from is a good landing."
FL 600 is a bit high, but not so much as seems to be implied here. No a current Lear can't make 600 (at least I don't think they can - didn't bother to look it up), but it isn't that awfully ludicrous.
You don't perhaps think that FL 600 means 600,000 feet (or meters, or whatever), do you? It is 60,000 feet.
Well, except for on April 1, but they only lasted the one day (and couldn't be used on other players). Great April fools joke that was, and a lot of work.
(RodneyRedhot in game).
If you do intend to go, you might note that, while the cited 9:30 ET time is corect, the launch site is not on Eastern time. Might be easy to miss that :-(
and assume that the cited time is launch site local. If you arrive at 9:30 local time, it will be long over.
That's 6:30 AM Pacific (local) time.
Followed in both caases by slashdot posters complaining about the inconsistency of slashdot posters.... :-)
Uh, oh. I feel an infinite recursion develping.
If you are a slashdot editor, just leave behind a script that creates random duplicates of old postings. Nobody will notice that you died. :-)
I'm betting that you don't have any experience with those error code gismos. Either that or they've changed in the last few years.
Last time I checked, the codes latched. Once they flagged a problem, the code would remain until reset. Just fixing the problem (i.e. tightening the cap) would not reset the code. Heck, you wouldn't want the code to reset itself if it detected some intermittent problem that wouldn't nicely repeat itself when taken to the mechanic.
Mind you, I agree with those who note that 12 times seems a bit much, but I think some people are a bit fast to criticise when they don't actually understand the circumstances.
"Or you can always just wait until she goes to bed to start playing."
:-)
Nah. Surprise her in the middle of the afternoon on occasion.
Oh, you meant playing computer games?
This is "insightful"? I see a lot of sophmoric profanity, but no insight. Or does sufficient profanity equate to insight these days? I wonder if the poster even bothered to read the rest of the article. In case he didn't...
Just because the check engine light indicated a loose gas cap one time, or even several times, that doesn't mean that the next time means the same thing. It might mean something serious. There is no way for Ms. Seymour to tell. Nor is there anyway for 3rd partly mechanics to tell. That was sort of the whole point of the article.
"...porting your apps to Mac users..."
:-)
Interesting idea. I thought most Mac users had to be programmed in English, though.
Yeah. I once spent about 15 minutes researching an implausible-sounding statistic related to this that someone had quoted from Rush. When he isn't just plain lying, he uses statistics carefully crafted to give misimpressions. In particular...
:-(
:-)
He had a statistic about the amount of forested area in the US actually increasing by some significant percentage over a period of a few decades. In trying to figure out any way that this might actually be true, I realized that the decades in question covered the time when Alaska became a state. A brief check of an Almanac showed that Alaska accounted for the claimed growth and quite a lot more. Factoring that in, it was clear that the same statistic showed a pretty alarming rate of destruction.
Guess we just need to annex Brazil to keep the trend going.
After that? Mars maybe? Can we somehow count Mars as all forested?
Not bad at 21 to 24 cents per processor. :-)
According to the article, they cost $209 to $241
per thousand units. Pretty decent.
If said PHB forms opinions based solely on what textbooks say, then perhaps he or she should consider getting an education instead of learning to play parrot.
The purpose of education is not to just listen carefully and recite back whatever is fed to you, but to learn to think and evaluate things yourself.
Alas, I know many so-called teachers who don't understand this (and others, such as my eldest son, who I think get it really well.)
"Based on the screenshots"? Did you read a different article than I did? I saw one screenshot, which showed nothing particulary commercial.
The article discussed some objectionable commercial stuff, but I have trouble fathoming your "based on the screenshots".
The "destroyed by mission control" bit is BS. Yes, I saw it said that way in a new report, but the newa report was BS.
The vehicle very "nicely" tore itself apart. No intervention by mission control was involved.
It will take a lot of heat, but not that much. Not Mach 7... or even 4. In fact, what I hear from people who would know (and who are a lot better sources than anything on Discovery channel - some of them have flown it) is that the speed is heat-limited instead of thrust-limited.
Yes, it eventually would run out of thrust (and long before Mach 7), but it would have heat problems first. If I recall correctly (but I'm not as sure of that part), it is the engines that first run into overheating problems.
P.S. Don't believe every rumor you here just because it sounds good to put down what "they" tell you. "They" don't always tell you the truth, but then neither do the people who tell you that "they" are lying.
The SR certainly does *NOT* go that fast.
And one of the main reasons that the SR can't go that fast (well, beside the fact that it wouldn't be able to take the heat) is *DIRECTLY* related to the whole point of scramjets.
The SR is a ramjet (well, it is a multi-mode engine, but we'll skip over that part). The extra sc in scramjet is for supersonic combustion, which is the whole tricky point. If you have to slow the intake air down to subsonic speeds for the combustion, you are fighting a loosing battle as the vehicle speeds go up. Ramjets like the SR are not practical at hypersonic speeds.
I was amused by the claim that OO was inferior because "if bugs [in OO] go unresolved, users have the option to resolve problems by...".
:-)
This apparently contrasts with MS Office, where if bugs go unresolved, users do not have any options.
Ok. I knew that, but I'm surprised that MS raised it as a point.
Well, not flawlessly, but it worked.
The Fortran 95 standard (which I was editor of) was done in Frame (not by my choice, but I went along) and Fortran 2003 started out in Frame. Adobe dropped their Linux plans just about at the same time as when access to Sun platforms was getting less convenient for me, my desktop having switched to Linux some time before. (I've now got a Mac OSX box in the center of the desk, with the Linux box still here, but on the side).
Adobe's dropping of the Linux product plans wasn't the only reason that we stopped using Frame, but it was a major factor. Some annoying bugs (even in the supported Solaris version), a user interface that probably was a major contributor to my wrist problems, and of course, the cost and proprietary business - those were all also factors. But the Linux issue was probably number one (well, the fact that we got a volunteer to do the Frame to LaTeX conversion was also pretty major).
I now use LaTeX (and XEmacs) for it.
> What is wrong with moderators these days?
Maybe they actually check links... as you obviously didn't.
So she wants to make software more intuitive and wants to make it more like the real world.
:-)
Perhaps she should make up her mind.
I liked the part about how the "customer can switch the doors back to transparent at the touch of a switch, exposing themselves to onlookers waiting outside the room."