I haven't really been paying attention to popular music the last few years. Are their any "break out" bands that have come out through the ranks of MP3.com? In other words, is there any of this "good music" that has appealed to a wide audience?
Actually, I'm tunneling my mail and HTTP through another server that is not being used for mail or HTTP. It works for now, but I'd really like to get it resolved.
Yes. I think Cox/PV (www.cox.com/pv) might be it's own little deal, too. They said the decision was made in "Atlanta" (I think?), and they didn't really know what was going on, only that it was "temporary". I hope so.
I have service in Cox Palos Verdes, and I have to say that the service rocks -- except for one thing.
You guys recently blocked my incoming mail and HTTP ports!! I called in and they said it was because of the Code Red virus, which explains HTTP, but why mail?
They said it was "temporary". Is that true? I'm routing my mail through I different server and coming in through a different port, but it's a pain. Do you know what the real story is? Thanks.
Sometimes I do the normal "find" command, but often I do it this way for just the reasons you cite:
find . -name '*.o'
[see what comes out]
Then pull it back and insert "rm ` `" around it for "rm `find . -name '*.o'`". It's no big deal for.o files, but for more complex finds it pays to do a verification step.:)
Well, first of all, his rm command was totally wrong, which I figured I wouldn't flame him for (it should be "find . -name '*.o' -exec rm {} \;", which 98 out 100 people probably don't know how to do anyway).
But to answer your question, I would right-click, ->search, type *.o, enter, click the files, ^A, del, Y, done.
Is the CLI faster? Yes. But not by much, and only by those 2/100 people.
It all depends on the task you want to perform. "rm -r *.o" is closer telling my faithful servant to "remove all object files from here on down" than is "click on Start - mouse over Search - click on For Files Or Folders - fill in.o in the appropriate field - click through several levels to specify the appropriate target to Look In - click on Search Now - click on Edit - click on Select All - click on Edit - click on Cut - click on Yes." A GUI is a lousy way to instruct a servant.
This happens every time CLI versus GUI comes up. Yes, you can do it like you describe, just like you can type "rm" for every file you want to delete in a CLI -- and then complain that "CLI sucks" because you have to type every file.
Just because you don't know how to use a GUI, don't assume that there aren't fast ways to do things.
However, I agree with your main point that for some things GUIs are better, and for other things CLI is better. What's annoying is that so many CLI people are totally inept and ignorant of how to use file managers effectively.
Well, clearly it must be harder than I think, since they would have done it that way a long time ago if it were easy.
But still... wouldn't you know the volume that so many atoms of a material would take if you melt it and form it under certain conditions (e.g., zero pressure)? Once you had a block, you could cut it to exact dimensions using lasers. Presumably we have very accurate way of measuring the meter, so we ought to be able to do very precise cuts.
They balance it against gravity to measure it? Wouldn't that be really, really inaccurate, since gravity varies by altitude, local density variations, etc? Did I misunderstand what I just read?
Sheeze, why not just define it as 1.498e20 atoms of carbon (or whatever number), and be done with it.
No, I believe it's a hold-over from serial ports. The normal serial port is configured with 1 start bit and 1 stop bit, so for serial ports, you do normally divide by 10 to convert to bytes. For modems, most everyone assumes that modems are just dumbly transmitting every bit you send to them (and that might have been the case, back in the old days). Modern modems, on the hand, are much more sophisticated in their encodings. As one modem engineer put it to me, "do you really think we're going to waste 20% of the bandwidth for stop and start bits?"
There is some overhead for CRC checks, but it's not nearly that large. I don't know what the packet size is, but it's at most 4 bytes for every 1024.
What's the frame rate? Sure, I could do HDTV over 28.8 -- if I had 1 frame per minute.
This is pretty absurd. Let's say 10 frame / second, which I think is probably minimum for a decent experience. 28.8 = 3600 bytes / second (yes, it's 8 bits, not 10 bits). That's only 360 bytes per frame! Full screen? 320x240x24b = 230KB uncompressed. That's 640/1 compression -- without sound. With sound??
Well, tech journalists are usually going to write for tech periodicals, which sell advertising to tech firms.
And news journalists write in magazines/newspapers that sell advertisting as well. What's your point? It's a well known ethical standard that news divisions and sales divisions should be separate. Some tech magazines are better than other tech magazines, just like news magazines.
Predictably, that makes them about as impartial as Car and Driver magazine.
What's your beef with C&D? I've never seen any hint of bias from them, and I'm a regular reader.
Sure the 2Ghz sounds great but the manner in which intel used to achieve it in no way translates to performance bc if your predictors screw up your data has to start all over again and go through that deep pipeline which kills performance.
Every modern processor has that problem. That's also why every modern processor has branch prediction to keep the pipe full. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. What do the benchmarks say? And the benchmarks say that an Athlon is about 30% faster clock for clock. So there's a penalty, but saying "kills performance" is not accurate. 1.4 AMD is about 1.7 P4, by the way.
And especially not accurate when the P4 scales to 4-5 Ghz and the Athlon tops out under 2 (or whatever). Ask the PPC guys about scaling clock speeds.
Again I have to point it out: If clock speed shouldn't matter, and performance is what we care about, why do you care that P4 is running at a higher clock speed?
So what does this prove? That someone who spends their life optimizing for Intel and PPC can squeeze a little more performance out of PPC?
Let's clue in here: Carmack is using standard compilers that everyone is going to use, and in fact, is probably better at it than most. In the real world, where I'm running brand X application on either x86 and PPC, Carmack's experience is probably closer to the typical case.
What I think we definitely know is that Apple is a little, er, disingenuous when they claim that PPC is "twice as fast" as x86.
Is misleading misled people nessisarily wrong? People have been mislead into believing the clock speed is a true metric of the speed of the computer.
Well, remember one thing: The clock speed IS significant in the speed of a computer. A 1Ghz processor is generally faster than a 100Mhz processor. We are talking about 20-30% differences here, so the consumers are not THAT misled.
To tell you the truth, I think this whole "megahertz conspiracy" stuff is overrated anyway. People shop primarily based on price and brand name. Most people buy Intel because they are comfortable with Intel. Hell, I choose Intel when it's around the same price because I don't want to deal with any compatability issues with whatever motherboard I purchase (not as much a problem nowadays), and generally game performance is better with Intel.
got look at some Tbird vs P4 benchmarks and tell me I'm wrong there
Please post a link to these "lies" that you so boldly claim. Even better, some proof that they are lies.
Unlike Intel, they're at least not lying about clock speed.
How is it better to attempt to intentionally mislead people? Cyrix tried this same trickery, and suffered the consequences.
This is no better than Apple's misleading claims that some bogus narrow benchmark or extremely optimized, specific operation (e.g., photoshop filters) is a measure of overall performance.
As evidence of my statements, I direct you to John Carmack's post regarding his performance tests of x86 versus PPC.
There is more to performance than what a lot of people want you to believe. This AMD move is simply about misleading consumers.
What I find amusing is that the same people who bitch that we shouldn't judge a processor by its clock speed are the same people who bitch that Intel's processors are slower at a certain clock speed than AMDs.
Who cares? The big question is overall performance. Intel made an architectural choice for the future, not for short-term performance gains. The trade-offs that they have made now are going to allow them to grow to much higher clock speeds in the future while AMD has a harder and harder time of it.
I questioned early on whether the ACLU would risk their hollywood gravy train by coming out in support of Sklyarov. Several Slashdot posters indicated they would use the feedback page to see why the ACLU was totally silent (try searching for "Sklyarov" -- absolutely nothing). Still nothing, though.
Those of you who are ACLU supporters should take careful note of this.
If I were a landlord, I'd be all over it, too -- making sure everyone understood that I had nothing to do with it. The cost of a network like this is not the hardware, it's the support.
Maybe you want to be constantly going around fixing everyone's network connection, figuring out why it sometimes stops working when the refrigerator goes on, etc, but there is no way in hell I would want to do it. And there's NO WAY I would guarantee it to a renter.
I mean, wouldn't they interfere with each other? Would you sit down and reboot in order to DHCP an address? When you walk around, would have to reboot periodically as you went to another station?
I mean, most of the complexity of the cellular system is "handing off" in a relatively seamless way.
I don't think the telecoms have much to worry about.
Thanks for the link. I've had some interest lately in the inner workings of neurons and that looks like an excellent book on the subject. Do you have any other book recommendations for people with interest in this subject?
I also saw an interesting post in the Amazon reviews of this book. A researcher(?) posted that the book doesn't go into his apparently favorite theory (which might be recent) that neuron communication is actually multichannel, rather than the standard binary/linear pulse that is normally assumed. Do you have any references for research about that theory?
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't really been paying attention to popular music the last few years. Are their any "break out" bands that have come out through the ranks of MP3.com? In other words, is there any of this "good music" that has appealed to a wide audience?
Actually, I'm tunneling my mail and HTTP through another server that is not being used for mail or HTTP. It works for now, but I'd really like to get it resolved.
If I wanted to bitch about the port situation, who should I bitch to? Technically, the agreement says I'm not supposed to run servers, but...
Is there some name in Atlanta that it would do some good to complain to?
It's so stupid. They should complain if I use too much bandwidth, not if I use a certain port or not.
Palos Verdes is probably Cox @home, correct?
Yes. I think Cox/PV (www.cox.com/pv) might be it's own little deal, too. They said the decision was made in "Atlanta" (I think?), and they didn't really know what was going on, only that it was "temporary". I hope so.
I have service in Cox Palos Verdes, and I have to say that the service rocks -- except for one thing.
You guys recently blocked my incoming mail and HTTP ports!! I called in and they said it was because of the Code Red virus, which explains HTTP, but why mail?
They said it was "temporary". Is that true? I'm routing my mail through I different server and coming in through a different port, but it's a pain. Do you know what the real story is? Thanks.
Sometimes I do the normal "find" command, but often I do it this way for just the reasons you cite:
find . -name '*.o'
[see what comes out]
Then pull it back and insert "rm ` `" around it for "rm `find . -name '*.o'`". It's no big deal for .o files, but for more complex finds it pays to do a verification step. :)
Well, first of all, his rm command was totally wrong, which I figured I wouldn't flame him for (it should be "find . -name '*.o' -exec rm {} \;", which 98 out 100 people probably don't know how to do anyway).
But to answer your question, I would right-click, ->search, type *.o, enter, click the files, ^A, del, Y, done.
Is the CLI faster? Yes. But not by much, and only by those 2/100 people.
It all depends on the task you want to perform. "rm -r *.o" is closer telling my faithful servant to "remove all object files from here on down" than is "click on Start - mouse over Search - click on For Files Or Folders - fill in .o in the appropriate field - click through several levels to specify the appropriate target to Look In - click on Search Now - click on Edit - click on Select All - click on Edit - click on Cut - click on Yes." A GUI is a lousy way to instruct a servant.
This happens every time CLI versus GUI comes up. Yes, you can do it like you describe, just like you can type "rm" for every file you want to delete in a CLI -- and then complain that "CLI sucks" because you have to type every file.
Just because you don't know how to use a GUI, don't assume that there aren't fast ways to do things.
However, I agree with your main point that for some things GUIs are better, and for other things CLI is better. What's annoying is that so many CLI people are totally inept and ignorant of how to use file managers effectively.
Well, clearly it must be harder than I think, since they would have done it that way a long time ago if it were easy.
But still... wouldn't you know the volume that so many atoms of a material would take if you melt it and form it under certain conditions (e.g., zero pressure)? Once you had a block, you could cut it to exact dimensions using lasers. Presumably we have very accurate way of measuring the meter, so we ought to be able to do very precise cuts.
They balance it against gravity to measure it? Wouldn't that be really, really inaccurate, since gravity varies by altitude, local density variations, etc? Did I misunderstand what I just read?
Sheeze, why not just define it as 1.498e20 atoms of carbon (or whatever number), and be done with it.
No, I believe it's a hold-over from serial ports. The normal serial port is configured with 1 start bit and 1 stop bit, so for serial ports, you do normally divide by 10 to convert to bytes. For modems, most everyone assumes that modems are just dumbly transmitting every bit you send to them (and that might have been the case, back in the old days). Modern modems, on the hand, are much more sophisticated in their encodings. As one modem engineer put it to me, "do you really think we're going to waste 20% of the bandwidth for stop and start bits?"
There is some overhead for CRC checks, but it's not nearly that large. I don't know what the packet size is, but it's at most 4 bytes for every 1024.
What's the frame rate? Sure, I could do HDTV over 28.8 -- if I had 1 frame per minute.
This is pretty absurd. Let's say 10 frame / second, which I think is probably minimum for a decent experience. 28.8 = 3600 bytes / second (yes, it's 8 bits, not 10 bits). That's only 360 bytes per frame! Full screen? 320x240x24b = 230KB uncompressed. That's 640/1 compression -- without sound. With sound??
Well, tech journalists are usually going to write for tech periodicals, which sell advertising to tech firms.
And news journalists write in magazines/newspapers that sell advertisting as well. What's your point? It's a well known ethical standard that news divisions and sales divisions should be separate. Some tech magazines are better than other tech magazines, just like news magazines.
Predictably, that makes them about as impartial as Car and Driver magazine.
What's your beef with C&D? I've never seen any hint of bias from them, and I'm a regular reader.
Sure the 2Ghz sounds great but the manner in which intel used to achieve it in no way translates to performance bc if your predictors screw up your data has to start all over again and go through that deep pipeline which kills performance.
Every modern processor has that problem. That's also why every modern processor has branch prediction to keep the pipe full. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. What do the benchmarks say? And the benchmarks say that an Athlon is about 30% faster clock for clock. So there's a penalty, but saying "kills performance" is not accurate. 1.4 AMD is about 1.7 P4, by the way.
And especially not accurate when the P4 scales to 4-5 Ghz and the Athlon tops out under 2 (or whatever). Ask the PPC guys about scaling clock speeds.
Again I have to point it out: If clock speed shouldn't matter, and performance is what we care about, why do you care that P4 is running at a higher clock speed?
So what does this prove? That someone who spends their life optimizing for Intel and PPC can squeeze a little more performance out of PPC?
Let's clue in here: Carmack is using standard compilers that everyone is going to use, and in fact, is probably better at it than most. In the real world, where I'm running brand X application on either x86 and PPC, Carmack's experience is probably closer to the typical case.
What I think we definitely know is that Apple is a little, er, disingenuous when they claim that PPC is "twice as fast" as x86.
Is misleading misled people nessisarily wrong? People have been mislead into believing the clock speed is a true metric of the speed of the computer.
Well, remember one thing: The clock speed IS significant in the speed of a computer. A 1Ghz processor is generally faster than a 100Mhz processor. We are talking about 20-30% differences here, so the consumers are not THAT misled.
To tell you the truth, I think this whole "megahertz conspiracy" stuff is overrated anyway. People shop primarily based on price and brand name. Most people buy Intel because they are comfortable with Intel. Hell, I choose Intel when it's around the same price because I don't want to deal with any compatability issues with whatever motherboard I purchase (not as much a problem nowadays), and generally game performance is better with Intel.
got look at some Tbird vs P4 benchmarks and tell me I'm wrong there
Please post a link to these "lies" that you so boldly claim. Even better, some proof that they are lies.
Unlike Intel, they're at least not lying about clock speed.
How is it better to attempt to intentionally mislead people? Cyrix tried this same trickery, and suffered the consequences.
This is no better than Apple's misleading claims that some bogus narrow benchmark or extremely optimized, specific operation (e.g., photoshop filters) is a measure of overall performance.
As evidence of my statements, I direct you to John Carmack's post regarding his performance tests of x86 versus PPC.
There is more to performance than what a lot of people want you to believe. This AMD move is simply about misleading consumers.
What I find amusing is that the same people who bitch that we shouldn't judge a processor by its clock speed are the same people who bitch that Intel's processors are slower at a certain clock speed than AMDs.
Who cares? The big question is overall performance. Intel made an architectural choice for the future, not for short-term performance gains. The trade-offs that they have made now are going to allow them to grow to much higher clock speeds in the future while AMD has a harder and harder time of it.
I questioned early on whether the ACLU would risk their hollywood gravy train by coming out in support of Sklyarov. Several Slashdot posters indicated they would use the feedback page to see why the ACLU was totally silent (try searching for "Sklyarov" -- absolutely nothing). Still nothing, though.
Those of you who are ACLU supporters should take careful note of this.
If I were a landlord, I'd be all over this.
If I were a landlord, I'd be all over it, too -- making sure everyone understood that I had nothing to do with it. The cost of a network like this is not the hardware, it's the support.
Maybe you want to be constantly going around fixing everyone's network connection, figuring out why it sometimes stops working when the refrigerator goes on, etc, but there is no way in hell I would want to do it. And there's NO WAY I would guarantee it to a renter.
Funny, but I don't need to stop talking, enter "winipcfg" on my phone, click release/renew, and continue talking.
Alright, alright, you don't need to reboot, but it's still a pain (and you don't need to reboot Windows either).
I mean, wouldn't they interfere with each other? Would you sit down and reboot in order to DHCP an address? When you walk around, would have to reboot periodically as you went to another station?
I mean, most of the complexity of the cellular system is "handing off" in a relatively seamless way.
I don't think the telecoms have much to worry about.
What options are out there nowadays for digital VCRs similar to TiVos that don't require a subscription? (and no, I don't care about the guide).
Koch in Biophysics of Computation
Thanks for the link. I've had some interest lately in the inner workings of neurons and that looks like an excellent book on the subject. Do you have any other book recommendations for people with interest in this subject?
I also saw an interesting post in the Amazon reviews of this book. A researcher(?) posted that the book doesn't go into his apparently favorite theory (which might be recent) that neuron communication is actually multichannel, rather than the standard binary/linear pulse that is normally assumed. Do you have any references for research about that theory?
Thanks in advance.