>The point it, if the computer can recognize handwriting, why not recognize ENGLISH handwriting instead of a computer language that's really close to English.
That would make sense if handwriting was efficient.
As a typist whose peak rate reaches 90 WPM, I protest very vocally when forced to use pen and paper rather than my trusty keyboard.
Thank God I never had a newton. I may as well use a pencil and paper! At least when I hook a keyboard up to my Palm Pilot, or I use the thumboard on my RIM pager I can approach a decent working speed!
>My old Apple// had a handle on the monitor as well and the computer itself. >Moreover, that thing came out well before that Compaq you linked us too.
Well, since we're getting into whose electronics have the oldest handles, does this win?
>Some of the folks here are simply trying to say that Apple's PowerMac cases offer a combo of accessibility, portability, and style that no one in the PC world has been able to duplicate.
We threw out an old AT server case at work that would beg to differ...;-)
It did have a handle, but boy, was it heavy! It was actually made of steel, something I wish all modern computer manufacturers (Apple, Dell, anyone, I don't care) could re-learn from.
Of course, then PC users wouldn't be buying cases and computers left and right... Heh.
Now, there are these guys, who do exactly what you want (but are usenet spammers, unfortunately, because I really wanted to buy one of those machines).
>and it not ugly and boring.
That I'll agree with. Macs certainly do stand out. Maybe I'm too old skool, but I liked it when I could actually use computer cases as a makeshift set of stairs.;-)
>Come one, by definition a pass through, DAC/ADC doesn't really exist.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but me and pretty much everyone else who has dealt with audio know about this "feature" in home audio CD recorders.
Anyways, this requirement, to have this passthrough "feature" is the law for home CD audio recorders, unless they can only make one copy, in which case they must also only take audio CDs.
This recorder won't even use the non-Audio CDs, although there's no reason it shouldn't, considering it does EXACTLY what you think it can't:
Due to the SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) circuitry that is a requirement on consumer-based CD-Recorders, a duplicate cannot be made of a copy that is digital. The CDR 2 will automatically switch to an analog deck-to-deck dub when it detects that the source is a digital copy. However, if you can make only one copy at a time, and you need multiple copies from a particular CD, there seems no logical reason why you shouldn't make all copies from the original.
Here's another review of another home audio CD recorder, and another quote about something you say doesn't exist (why don't you tell NAD that they should stop lying to their customers?):
If that doesn't make it sound like an ideal machine for those who like to keep their copying options open, it will even simplify the copying of material encoded with the Serial Copyright Management System -- for example first-generation CD/R-CD/RW copies. Load one of these and copying system just switches from its default digital operation to copying in the analogue domain, running the output from the playback deck through the DAC and then back through the ADC in the CD-R/RW section.
Would you like me to find you more reviews, or are you satisfied that I'm correct? >The only difference between "Audio" and regular CD's is a bit on the CD's that the manufactures set at production.
Agreed. But that doesn't stop equipment from reacting differently to this bit. And some does, because if it didn't, the producers of such equipment, if it is sold in certain countries (like the US), will go to jail.
>Digital is digital.
Not when it goes through an DAC/ADC stage. Then it's analog to digital to analog, which means a very minute loss of quality.
By doing this the producers of said equipment no longer have to follow the restrictions (as listed in the above link), as they are no longer recording the signal from a digital source.
I still say that they might be sly and misleading, but they aren't liars or ignorant. Unless you want to buy a home audio CD recorder that is illegal, I'm right.
>I haven't figured out yet whether they're deliberately lying or just ignorant.
They're actually neither.
The audio CDs are more flexible. They can be recorded in any equipment, whereas the "regular" CDs require either a data drive, a professional audio CD recorder, or a newer consumer CD audio recorder that has a built in DAC/ADC stage.
They also sound better. Unlike regular data CDs, which when recorded in the newer consumer CD audio recorders are recorded after a pass through the DAC/ADC, the audio CDs are a bit-for-bit copy.
It might be sly, it might even be misleading, but it isn't lying, or ignorance.
But it seems there's something missing from the standards... like that.:-)
Why is it that these networks don't simply break the bits per byte of sound up? IE: For every 8 samples of sound (assuming it's 8-bit sound), the bits are interleaved. This way if a byte is missing, the sound is still present, but at a lower quality.
Is there some technical reason this isn't done that I'm missing? I'd much rather my phone go from 8-bit sound quality, to 7-bit, to 6-bit, etc, etc, rather than just dropping out altogether.
>You're the one with the crack-pipe now, buddy- The K6's were dogs...Depending on what you use them for...
Again, yes, depending on what you use them for. For my uses, which weren't very much in the gaming sector, the K6 flew by anything intel could offer me, price for price, and sometimes MHz for MHz.
People gotta stop comparing the K6 with the PII, IMHO. AFAIC, the K6 was never a serious competitor to the PII. That wasn't it's design. It was designed to be a competitor to the regular Pentium I (which is was, very strongly) and the Pentium Pro (not so strongly). AMDs marketing might have said otherwise, but I but their engineers were sneering at them.
For what I did, I'd take a K6-500 over a PII-500 anyday. But then again, I'm mostly doing office stuff, not games or SETI@Home...:-)
I still don't know where the K6 has a slow FPU idea is coming from.
Here's some MFLOPS benchmarks. Notice how the K6 FPU actually competes with similarly clocked PII cores, even though the K6 was never meant to be a competitor with such an advanced processor.
The bad CPU was the Cyrix for FPU, and also the K5. But the K6? No way, hozay.
>The K-6 was one of the worst processors to ever hit the market. I had a P166 that outperformed my K6-350.
I'm sorry, but you're totally whigged out on that one. The K5 line, maybe, but the K6? Maybe you're thinking Cyrix 6x86, because ALL AMD K6 processors beat ALL equivalent (in MHz) pentium processors in EVERYTHING. In fact, AMD's K6 crushed the Pentium line so badly that it killed it at the P233 (P266 if you can find the 1.9 V motherboards) when AMD started announcing cool new tech like their "3D Now" enhancements.
>The 486 equivalents were basically eqivalent to Intel, but the next generation was a step backwards.
Agreed, but that was the K5, not the K6. The K5 was always meant to be a 486 killer, but not a pentium killer.
The FPU in the K6 was designed very well -- AMD actually hired people from companies (I believe weitek might be one) that only desgined FPUs at the time to make the FPU core for this processor.
If your K6 was that bad, I put it to you that the rest of the machine hooked up to the processor was your bottleneck.
K6 line... beat intel's pentium line in Mhz handily. My friend has a 500 Mhz chip in his machine. Nice and fast... 486 Line... My AMD DX-100 would like to have a talk with you about what you're saying. 386 Line... Uhhh... AMD 386 DX-40 anyone? 286 Line... the top notch processors had whose stamp on them? I seem to recall AMD logos on pretty much all of them.
In sort, you are way off the mark. I'll provide links and proof if you want.
>but if you take the time to go into the config menus you can turn almost all of it off (otherwise I would have uninstalled it).
So, you went through these steps then?
- Tell it you don't want to register
- Tell it you don't want it to eat your screen up with ads and such
- Tell it you don't want to it take over your file associations
- Tell it you don't want it to send your personal data to real
- Stop the automatic stuff from playing
- Tell it not to play the automatic stuff again
- Tell it you don't want start center enabled
- Tell it you really wanted to do the above
- Tell it you don't want the "latest" version
- Tell it you don't want to register
- Tell it you don't want it to eat your screen up with ads and such
- Tell it you don't want to it take over your file associations
- Tell it you don't want it to send your personal data to real
- Tell it you don't want to register
- Tell it you don't want it to eat your screen up with ads and such
- Tell it you don't want to it take over your file associations
- Tell it you don't want it to send your personal data to real
Yup, that's right, you have to redo a lot of the steps if you want to keep your realplayer private.
Anyways, I'm sorry, but I get paid too much per hour to go through that trouble again. And on one job I'm only a dollar an hour away from minimum wage! They can keep their trash.
Considering the quality of radio these days, I'm surprised anyone cares whether or not their car's deck has a tuner in it or not. Mine's permanently tuned to the local college station (that's if I'm not using the CD), and most of the time even they play nothing but bunk.
>Normally if you have DirecTV in your RV, you need a separate subscription, not just the $5 "add-a-receiver" fee, since there's no phone line attached.
Orrrr... You could just have hooked it up to your home phoneline when you were activating it. Once it takes the hit, there's no reason it needs to be hooked into a phone line ever again, AFAIK.
Actually, there's no need to have it plugged into the phone line when it takes the hit, either. It's just that DirecTV wants to see it "phone home" on your caller ID. Using that good old noodle, I'm sure you'll be able to think up a reason why the caller ID would be useless (party line, WPP, auto *67 dialer) and why after the first call it would never call in again (only plug it in for an hour a week to watch Junkyard Wars, can't leave it plugged in as you're living in a church on a hill).:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Is this an attempt to prevent motherboard manufacturers who have, in the past, pirated your BIOS, from continuing to do so?
[ If so, kudos to you! ]
2F05
Oh, and IMHO, Xerox bears a lot of resemblance to HyperGlobalMegaNet.
>The point it, if the computer can recognize handwriting, why not recognize ENGLISH handwriting instead of a computer language that's really close to English.
That would make sense if handwriting was efficient.
As a typist whose peak rate reaches 90 WPM, I protest very vocally when forced to use pen and paper rather than my trusty keyboard.
Thank God I never had a newton. I may as well use a pencil and paper! At least when I hook a keyboard up to my Palm Pilot, or I use the thumboard on my RIM pager I can approach a decent working speed!
>My old Apple // had a handle on the monitor as well and the computer itself. >Moreover, that thing came out well before that Compaq you linked us too.
;-)
;-)
Well, since we're getting into whose electronics have the oldest handles, does this win?
>Some of the folks here are simply trying to say that Apple's PowerMac cases offer a combo of accessibility, portability, and style that no one in the PC world has been able to duplicate.
We threw out an old AT server case at work that would beg to differ...
It did have a handle, but boy, was it heavy! It was actually made of steel, something I wish all modern computer manufacturers (Apple, Dell, anyone, I don't care) could re-learn from.
Of course, then PC users wouldn't be buying cases and computers left and right... Heh.
Now, there are these guys, who do exactly what you want (but are usenet spammers, unfortunately, because I really wanted to buy one of those machines).
>and it not ugly and boring.
That I'll agree with. Macs certainly do stand out. Maybe I'm too old skool, but I liked it when I could actually use computer cases as a makeshift set of stairs.
>The Apple 1 fit in a brief Case:
>That beats that by about 8 years
Why fit it in a briefcase when the computer can be the briefcase?
Actually, I'd like to see such a thing mass manufactured, so I really do hope Apple copies this idea!
>If you agree with me, then you think I'm right.
:-)
Well, when you put it like that, I think you're right...
>PC makers still have a lot to learn from Apple IMO
You mean Apple learned from PC makers, right? Apples loves to bring back really OLD ideas and pretend they're new and cool...
I'm sorry you feel that way, but me and pretty much everyone else who has dealt with audio know about this "feature" in home audio CD recorders.
Anyways, this requirement, to have this passthrough "feature" is the law for home CD audio recorders, unless they can only make one copy, in which case they must also only take audio CDs.
This recorder won't even use the non-Audio CDs, although there's no reason it shouldn't, considering it does EXACTLY what you think it can't:
Here's another review of another home audio CD recorder, and another quote about something you say doesn't exist (why don't you tell NAD that they should stop lying to their customers?):
Would you like me to find you more reviews, or are you satisfied that I'm correct?
>The only difference between "Audio" and regular CD's is a bit on the CD's that the manufactures set at production.
Agreed. But that doesn't stop equipment from reacting differently to this bit. And some does, because if it didn't, the producers of such equipment, if it is sold in certain countries (like the US), will go to jail.
>Digital is digital.
Not when it goes through an DAC/ADC stage. Then it's analog to digital to analog, which means a very minute loss of quality.
By doing this the producers of said equipment no longer have to follow the restrictions (as listed in the above link), as they are no longer recording the signal from a digital source.
I still say that they might be sly and misleading, but they aren't liars or ignorant. Unless you want to buy a home audio CD recorder that is illegal, I'm right.
>I haven't figured out yet whether they're deliberately lying or just ignorant.
They're actually neither.
The audio CDs are more flexible. They can be recorded in any equipment, whereas the "regular" CDs require either a data drive, a professional audio CD recorder, or a newer consumer CD audio recorder that has a built in DAC/ADC stage.
They also sound better. Unlike regular data CDs, which when recorded in the newer consumer CD audio recorders are recorded after a pass through the DAC/ADC, the audio CDs are a bit-for-bit copy.
It might be sly, it might even be misleading, but it isn't lying, or ignorance.
>or more likely, ..sued.
Twice? Isn't that covered by double jeopardy?
>Also, shoes, assuming they are leather, would actually be considered red meat.
Good point.
Time for a little sig twiddling...
But it seems there's something missing from the standards... like that. :-)
Why is it that these networks don't simply break the bits per byte of sound up? IE: For every 8 samples of sound (assuming it's 8-bit sound), the bits are interleaved. This way if a byte is missing, the sound is still present, but at a lower quality.
Is there some technical reason this isn't done that I'm missing? I'd much rather my phone go from 8-bit sound quality, to 7-bit, to 6-bit, etc, etc, rather than just dropping out altogether.
>You're the one with the crack-pipe now, buddy- The K6's were dogs...Depending on what you use them for...
:-)
Again, yes, depending on what you use them for. For my uses, which weren't very much in the gaming sector, the K6 flew by anything intel could offer me, price for price, and sometimes MHz for MHz.
People gotta stop comparing the K6 with the PII, IMHO. AFAIC, the K6 was never a serious competitor to the PII. That wasn't it's design. It was designed to be a competitor to the regular Pentium I (which is was, very strongly) and the Pentium Pro (not so strongly). AMDs marketing might have said otherwise, but I but their engineers were sneering at them.
For what I did, I'd take a K6-500 over a PII-500 anyday. But then again, I'm mostly doing office stuff, not games or SETI@Home...
>In everything from Quake II to 3D Studio, the 233 MHz K6 is about half as fast as the 233 MHz PII.
This problem was fixed when the K6 overtook the Pentium I line in MHz.
Quake with 3dNow! brings K6 performance to a near par with PII performance.
(If Quake is your benchmark, that is)
I still don't know where the K6 has a slow FPU idea is coming from.
Here's some MFLOPS benchmarks. Notice how the K6 FPU actually competes with similarly clocked PII cores, even though the K6 was never meant to be a competitor with such an advanced processor.
The bad CPU was the Cyrix for FPU, and also the K5. But the K6? No way, hozay.
Companies like PC Chips have stolen their BIOSes in the past... this is a perfect way to protect their code while gaining support from developers.
Good move, I say.
>The K-6 was one of the worst processors to ever hit the market. I had a P166 that outperformed my K6-350.
I'm sorry, but you're totally whigged out on that one. The K5 line, maybe, but the K6? Maybe you're thinking Cyrix 6x86, because ALL AMD K6 processors beat ALL equivalent (in MHz) pentium processors in EVERYTHING. In fact, AMD's K6 crushed the Pentium line so badly that it killed it at the P233 (P266 if you can find the 1.9 V motherboards) when AMD started announcing cool new tech like their "3D Now" enhancements.
>The 486 equivalents were basically eqivalent to Intel, but the next generation was a step backwards.
Agreed, but that was the K5, not the K6. The K5 was always meant to be a 486 killer, but not a pentium killer.
The FPU in the K6 was designed very well -- AMD actually hired people from companies (I believe weitek might be one) that only desgined FPUs at the time to make the FPU core for this processor.
If your K6 was that bad, I put it to you that the rest of the machine hooked up to the processor was your bottleneck.
Wow, you got an interesting score for that?
Let's see...
K6 line... beat intel's pentium line in Mhz handily. My friend has a 500 Mhz chip in his machine. Nice and fast...
486 Line... My AMD DX-100 would like to have a talk with you about what you're saying.
386 Line... Uhhh... AMD 386 DX-40 anyone?
286 Line... the top notch processors had whose stamp on them? I seem to recall AMD logos on pretty much all of them.
In sort, you are way off the mark. I'll provide links and proof if you want.
So, if there's no protection on the NES, why all the hullaballoo about TenGen and their gold carts, and Camerica's Game Genie?
:-)
That's right -- the lockout chip.
Not all NES's required one, though. I suppose you were lucky, or were _really_ lucky and had one of the pirate consoles.
>was that these people weren't around to see the evolution of the 386 vs 486, 486 vs Pentium, and, to a lesser extent, the 286 vs 386.
In all of these cases (286, 386, 486, and Pentium) AMD beat Intel in raw MHz, and often in speed as well.
Sorry to say that, but it is true.
>but if you take the time to go into the config menus you can turn almost all of it off (otherwise I would have uninstalled it).
So, you went through these steps then?
- Tell it you don't want to register
- Tell it you don't want it to eat your screen up with ads and such
- Tell it you don't want to it take over your file associations
- Tell it you don't want it to send your personal data to real
- Stop the automatic stuff from playing
- Tell it not to play the automatic stuff again
- Tell it you don't want start center enabled
- Tell it you really wanted to do the above
- Tell it you don't want the "latest" version
- Tell it you don't want to register
- Tell it you don't want it to eat your screen up with ads and such
- Tell it you don't want to it take over your file associations
- Tell it you don't want it to send your personal data to real
- Tell it you don't want to register
- Tell it you don't want it to eat your screen up with ads and such
- Tell it you don't want to it take over your file associations
- Tell it you don't want it to send your personal data to real
Yup, that's right, you have to redo a lot of the steps if you want to keep your realplayer private.
Anyways, I'm sorry, but I get paid too much per hour to go through that trouble again. And on one job I'm only a dollar an hour away from minimum wage! They can keep their trash.
>Relax, it's illegal for you to have a TV that is visible to the driver. ...That's why you mount it as a HUD.
Considering the quality of radio these days, I'm surprised anyone cares whether or not their car's deck has a tuner in it or not. Mine's permanently tuned to the local college station (that's if I'm not using the CD), and most of the time even they play nothing but bunk.
>A big moral builder.
;-)
Sounds to me like during this Iraqi "crisis" morals are the last thing the military should be building up in its soldiers.
>Normally if you have DirecTV in your RV, you need a separate subscription, not just the $5 "add-a-receiver" fee, since there's no phone line attached.
:-)
Orrrr... You could just have hooked it up to your home phoneline when you were activating it. Once it takes the hit, there's no reason it needs to be hooked into a phone line ever again, AFAIK.
Actually, there's no need to have it plugged into the phone line when it takes the hit, either. It's just that DirecTV wants to see it "phone home" on your caller ID. Using that good old noodle, I'm sure you'll be able to think up a reason why the caller ID would be useless (party line, WPP, auto *67 dialer) and why after the first call it would never call in again (only plug it in for an hour a week to watch Junkyard Wars, can't leave it plugged in as you're living in a church on a hill).