CDs, because of their low sampling frequency (which should have been 96kHz from the start), mangle the waveforms at high frequencies.
For an otherwise insightful post, you managed to forget about the sampling theorem and its implications. You do get mangled waveforms at high frequencies, but since you cannot hear the overtones above 20 KHz, you cannot distinguish between different waveforms above 10 KHz.
I don't assume anyone seriously proposes switching to Dvorak when about to write code, then switching back to their normal layout once you've written your line or two.
On a related note, I use a UK keyboard layout for most things, and switch to Finnish for writing in my native tongue. Finnish has three extra letters, which take the places of certain punctuation keys, and they end up in completely unusable locations with the AltGr modifier.
The 1000 watts of light per square meter is based on the amount of light from a 1000 watt incandescent light bulb.
I'd like to clarify that the 'solar constant' isn't really tied to the way light is produced in bulbs. The point is that the 1000 W/m2 is total power over all frequencies of sunlight from IR to UV. Visible light is a rather small fraction of that.
USB 2.0, of course, has a higher theoretical top bandwidth than Firewire 400.
USB 2.0 has one transmission line capable of 480 Mbps, and can be used in either direction (half duplex). Firewire 400 has two transmission lines of 400 Mbps, one for each direction. So to begin with, Firewire has higher total capacity.
USB 2.0 might be able to achieve short burst of over 400 Mbps in one direction, but I'm not sure how much that counts in the overall scheme. You need two-way communication for either reading or writing data, and there's probably some overhead in switching between the two directions in the same line.
You're missing the most important idea of HTML. It is about information transfer with logical markup (e.g. "this is a heading") with little regard to presentation details. It makes sense because the user agent (Ordinary web browser, cellphone, etc.) can decide how to present the information, but you obviously have less control on the actual looks. Conversely, PS is meant for the exact replication of content, but it's less flexible for viewing on different devices.
Incidentally, many web designers fail to realize this, which has led to many of the current problems. They are trying to use HTML where PS would be much more appropriate.
Though you may have learned that the plural of 'octopus' is 'octopi' and the plural of 'cactus' is 'cacti', the plural of 'virus' is viruses, not 'virii'.
If you use the logic "-us" => "-i", then we should have "virus" => "viri". Where the heck do people get the extra i?
Math-oriented people must be familiar with "radius" => "radii", but it does follow the same logic with the extra i already there in the singular form. Then again, "virii" is funny in the way that it emphasizes incorrect spelling. It's even more funny when used by someone pretending to work with computers where typos are much more dangerous than in natural languages.
Consumers _like_ simplicity. They don't want to use ndiswrapper. They don't want to configure their x windows. They only want the damn hardware work as soon as they plug it in. Can you do it with other OSes?
I agree with the general idea of simplicity. However, as a Linux user since 1999, I sure as hell don't want to use ndiswrapper or some such dirty hacks. In many ways Linux is simpler than Windows, it doesn't get in my way, which is why I like to use it. And I'm not sure where you get the idea that anything works in Windows without installing drivers.
But... I thought computers didn't have processor cores until Intel innovated them in their successor to Pentium M and P4. I also wonder how computers will work with future CPUs that come after the Core line.
Seriously, 'core' is just marketspeak for multiple CPUs on one die, and shouldn't be used by anyone who wants to be understood clearly.
You know, there isn't really any increase in the total daylight per day. But if the change in schedule works for you anyway, that's great. I find such forced change annoying and patronizing.
Actually, I think the problem is numerically bigger than what the 1-hour change tries to correct. It's more like 4 hours, considering a night's sleep from midnight to 8 am. So to maximize daylight during waking hours, you'd have to change the physical midnight to be about 4 am. Wouldn't that be great?
What I'm trying to say is that most humans have a very asymmetric schedule compared to physical hours of light and dark. If you try to force people out of the asymmetry, they will eventually drift back into a new kind of asymmetry. I also like it when the time on a clock bears some vague resemblance to physical events like midnight.
To really shift the Instruction Set, you obviously have to do it in an evolutionary way. Such as, allowing access to the lower level IS (i.e. the instructions that the x86 gets translated into) in a virtual machine environment. So, you could have a more efficient Linux OS running in a VM, and if the benefits of that are substantial, more people might use that mode for the host OS (which could then run x86 VMs for legacy). It's easy to see that being used for Linux and even Mac OS as their portability is already proven, and they began as modern OS's - working only in protected mode.
This idea is certainly intriguing. The x86-RISC translator is a little like the PS3 hypervisor and closed hardware drivers; why can't the manufacturer just let us use the damn hardware we bought, directly? It's like their hiding something there, and the inefficiencies of indirection are clearly bad for everyone.
On the other hand, I remember the same discussion from the Crusoe processor, where the x86 translation is more obvious. There are benefits to having a stable ABI and the manufacturer can freely develop the internal interfaces. Even with a completely opensource system, it takes time and effort to port between CPUs -- imagine doing it for every different i686 out there.
Of course, it would be great if the stable ABI were a little more sensible than x86...
I still think, from a usabuility stand point, the 3.1 desktop was very good.
Yes, it looked ugly, but that's not the point.
It grouped everything right there, on the desktop. This is very helpfull to users.
With Windows 3.1, computer usage was much more limited compared to today, due to multitasking capabilities and storage space among other factors. Thus the desktop idea was OK for a while.
Now computers are much more capable than what you can see on a screen at a time. Conversely, many people's computer usage is limited to what they can directly visualize; at worst this shows in thinking that a file is stored on the actual desktop/monitor.
IMHO, virtual desktops and command shells (especially with something like screen) are nice as they are quite scalable, yet they can present a sufficiently limited and clear interface at a time. When I'm working on something, I don't want to see anything distracting, and that includes things like start menus and taskbars. I don't see anything convenient in having all the bazillion files and programs at once on the desktop just in case I need one of them.
So in other words, because HP is dishonest, their customers should be dishonest too? Greeeat. That'll help.
I agree with being honest here. When enough people mention Linux to tech support people, then perhaps the vendor will start taking Linux users seriously. The issue is similar to preloaded Windows that we never use; even if Windows costs nothing, it's important to give the vendor the message that there's a market for non-Windows machines.
I was expecting a new kind of package where you could cool both sides of the CPU die, instead of just one. That would obviously double the amount of heat transferred.
There was an article last year about someone coming up with using ultrasonic waves to trigger regrowth of teeth.
AFAIK, it uses a rather well-known effect for stimulating bone growth, the same by which e.g. running makes your leg bones stronger. The article mentions uses related to the jaw and the roots of teeth, both of which are basically bone. On the other hand, enamel is a completely different tissue that cannot regenerate in adults because the cells are no longer around, as explained in the main article.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything is natural. Humans build interwebs like spiders weave their webs.
On the other hand, if you define Internet as not natural, it is therefore supernatural and I can choose not to believe in NO CARRIER
For an otherwise insightful post, you managed to forget about the sampling theorem and its implications. You do get mangled waveforms at high frequencies, but since you cannot hear the overtones above 20 KHz, you cannot distinguish between different waveforms above 10 KHz.
On a related note, I use a UK keyboard layout for most things, and switch to Finnish for writing in my native tongue. Finnish has three extra letters, which take the places of certain punctuation keys, and they end up in completely unusable locations with the AltGr modifier.
I'd like to clarify that the 'solar constant' isn't really tied to the way light is produced in bulbs. The point is that the 1000 W/m2 is total power over all frequencies of sunlight from IR to UV. Visible light is a rather small fraction of that.
USB 2.0 has one transmission line capable of 480 Mbps, and can be used in either direction (half duplex). Firewire 400 has two transmission lines of 400 Mbps, one for each direction. So to begin with, Firewire has higher total capacity.
USB 2.0 might be able to achieve short burst of over 400 Mbps in one direction, but I'm not sure how much that counts in the overall scheme. You need two-way communication for either reading or writing data, and there's probably some overhead in switching between the two directions in the same line.
You're missing the most important idea of HTML. It is about information transfer with logical markup (e.g. "this is a heading") with little regard to presentation details. It makes sense because the user agent (Ordinary web browser, cellphone, etc.) can decide how to present the information, but you obviously have less control on the actual looks. Conversely, PS is meant for the exact replication of content, but it's less flexible for viewing on different devices.
Incidentally, many web designers fail to realize this, which has led to many of the current problems. They are trying to use HTML where PS would be much more appropriate.
PWRficient looks like a good contender and works with the existing Power/PPC codebase.
I thought we'd already learned from trustworthy media such as South Park that Japanese men have a chronic wii shortage...
My plane is full of snakes.
If you use the logic "-us" => "-i", then we should have "virus" => "viri". Where the heck do people get the extra i?
Math-oriented people must be familiar with "radius" => "radii", but it does follow the same logic with the extra i already there in the singular form. Then again, "virii" is funny in the way that it emphasizes incorrect spelling. It's even more funny when used by someone pretending to work with computers where typos are much more dangerous than in natural languages.
So does my vacuum cleaner embraced and extended by one of those XP sticker...
I agree with the general idea of simplicity. However, as a Linux user since 1999, I sure as hell don't want to use ndiswrapper or some such dirty hacks. In many ways Linux is simpler than Windows, it doesn't get in my way, which is why I like to use it. And I'm not sure where you get the idea that anything works in Windows without installing drivers.
But... I thought computers didn't have processor cores until Intel innovated them in their successor to Pentium M and P4. I also wonder how computers will work with future CPUs that come after the Core line.
Seriously, 'core' is just marketspeak for multiple CPUs on one die, and shouldn't be used by anyone who wants to be understood clearly.
Or, more generally: rights come with responsibilities. Which is something most of the animal rights movements fail to acknowledge.
What kind of a networked OS doesn't use GMT internally?
I do care if a number contains alphabetical suffixes. If we rationalize on something like GMT, might as well use a proper 24-hour time.
You know, there isn't really any increase in the total daylight per day. But if the change in schedule works for you anyway, that's great. I find such forced change annoying and patronizing.
Actually, I think the problem is numerically bigger than what the 1-hour change tries to correct. It's more like 4 hours, considering a night's sleep from midnight to 8 am. So to maximize daylight during waking hours, you'd have to change the physical midnight to be about 4 am. Wouldn't that be great?
What I'm trying to say is that most humans have a very asymmetric schedule compared to physical hours of light and dark. If you try to force people out of the asymmetry, they will eventually drift back into a new kind of asymmetry. I also like it when the time on a clock bears some vague resemblance to physical events like midnight.
This idea is certainly intriguing. The x86-RISC translator is a little like the PS3 hypervisor and closed hardware drivers; why can't the manufacturer just let us use the damn hardware we bought, directly? It's like their hiding something there, and the inefficiencies of indirection are clearly bad for everyone.
On the other hand, I remember the same discussion from the Crusoe processor, where the x86 translation is more obvious. There are benefits to having a stable ABI and the manufacturer can freely develop the internal interfaces. Even with a completely opensource system, it takes time and effort to port between CPUs -- imagine doing it for every different i686 out there.
Of course, it would be great if the stable ABI were a little more sensible than x86...
With Windows 3.1, computer usage was much more limited compared to today, due to multitasking capabilities and storage space among other factors. Thus the desktop idea was OK for a while.
Now computers are much more capable than what you can see on a screen at a time. Conversely, many people's computer usage is limited to what they can directly visualize; at worst this shows in thinking that a file is stored on the actual desktop/monitor.
IMHO, virtual desktops and command shells (especially with something like screen) are nice as they are quite scalable, yet they can present a sufficiently limited and clear interface at a time. When I'm working on something, I don't want to see anything distracting, and that includes things like start menus and taskbars. I don't see anything convenient in having all the bazillion files and programs at once on the desktop just in case I need one of them.
At first glans I thought I saw a 'vagina' there, but I guess it's just my dirty subconscious playing with my spelling...
Death by sku-sku!
I agree with being honest here. When enough people mention Linux to tech support people, then perhaps the vendor will start taking Linux users seriously. The issue is similar to preloaded Windows that we never use; even if Windows costs nothing, it's important to give the vendor the message that there's a market for non-Windows machines.
I was expecting a new kind of package where you could cool both sides of the CPU die, instead of just one. That would obviously double the amount of heat transferred.
AFAIK, it uses a rather well-known effect for stimulating bone growth, the same by which e.g. running makes your leg bones stronger. The article mentions uses related to the jaw and the roots of teeth, both of which are basically bone. On the other hand, enamel is a completely different tissue that cannot regenerate in adults because the cells are no longer around, as explained in the main article.