no shit! google has to be one of the most useful things on the internet, and the internet is arguable one of the most useful things around today. tools for tool users. evolution for those monkeys that can.
well another question could be how accurately could I shoot, or how good are my reaction times, or even how much is the line of fire refracted by the atmosphere. but that not really the point is it?
surely if the monkey is far enough away then the time that the light indicating the start of the fall takes to reach the hunter will cause him to miss high? it would also seem that the curvature of the earth would cause the hunter to aim low. surely these two effects don't cancel each other out completely?
Microsoft: "hey this java stuff is pretty cool, maybe we can use it to replace VB"
Sun: "Sure, fork out $50M for the license, and do a reference implementation for us on windows. oh, and fix all the bugs for us while you're at it."
Microsoft: "ok, we'll promote it by shipping a VM in IE, and produce some dev tools too, how's that?" ...
hardly disable. Microsoft created a VM that supported all but two of the technologies that Sun specified. Those two were RMI and JNI, both of which inherrantly break the 'write once, run anywhere' paradigm (on the client - RMI requires security that Sun didn't specify, and JNI requires native code which doesn't run everywhere. Besides those, the Microsoft VM was, for a while at least, the most complete VM around. Especially with respect to AWY which Microsoft had to completely rewrite to fix all the stupid bugs and performance problems the Sun engineers put in there.
It's still undecided as to whether or not Microsoft violated the licensing agreement. Sure, Sun claimed as such, but the case was settled without a decision.
Okay, it could be said that Fraunhoffer et al are profiteering from their invention. But that's why they invented it, and it's not a trivial invention, either. Hence the patent.
The real question is: why did the MPEG group choose a technology that was patented, or at least had a patent pending? Shouldn't it be up to the standards body to ensure that they're not going to screw over all of their users by forcing them to pay in the future for something that's bound to become a standard?
If we don't want this to happen again in the future, shouldn't we reject future standards that are based on patentable technologies?
something that MS and Netscape have supported since IE4 & NS6 and that Opera still doesn't have support for (remember: the DOM includes APIs for changing docment properties, not just displaying them). Let's hope that they've got it right this time.
And while I'm making wishes, hopefully someone will make an XMLDOM faster than MSXMLDOM!
yeah, this is one of the main things keeping me on the MS (pre-.NET) platform. My app uses alot of XML/XSLT and the MS procesor is easily the fastest I've seen.
it won't help, but I didn't mention non-MS platforms or clustering in my post. I specifically said that you can get all the MS products in a single package for far less than the total cost of included products (all OSs, desktop apps, dev tools, backoffice servers, etc...). nothing more, nothing less. besides, what's a 'windlot'?
nah, the most you ever have to pay for an MS development machine is 3K (+1K/year) for MSDN universal, that get's you everything you need including some free developer support. that's chep compared to most unix dev kits. they also have volume licensing for large companies, but I've only even needed one;-)
grain of salt? the guy's a fucking moron. firstly he should be installing XP, a consumer OS for a consumer girlfriend (not 2K, never designed to be installed by consumers), secondly why did he upgrade 3 different versions of IE? why not just install 2Ksp3 which includes IE6. dumbass. then, he should know an OEM setup from the real thing, no wonder he got a whole bunch of adverts for stuff, and a blank admin password. has this guy never installed a REAL version of win2k before?
Actually it's for my company and we'll be reselling or sub-leasing the screens to our customers. I don't have a test screen yet, and if you bothered to read the article you'd know that I'm still researching which screen fits the requirements. The reason I posted the question is because I don't have the money to buy a screen and I want to be sure I won't be wasting time renting one for $600+/day.
First thanks for all your replies, I've gotten some good information.
I should have been a bit more specific with my question.
Firstly I want to use the DVI input on the display because I want to get the highest fidelity possible. I also want to be able to use the natvie resolution of the screen because I don't want the screen to have to scale the video image. The problem with using the DVI interface is that the DVI spec allows the screen to tell the video card which DVI resolutions it supports, and even though the screen may have a native resolution of 1366x768 (16:9) it may not advertise that mode to the card, and even if it does the driver or the card may not support that mode.
I know that most DVI-capable video cards will support video modes larger than that of the screen (1600x1200, for example), but as far as I know the selection is limited when the DVI interface is being used.
I know of the PowerStrip utility and its ability to create custom resolutions, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the display is capable of being driven at those resolutions.
Slashdot Mirror
ironic, isn't it, that a country with such a poor IP record as Chin should be blocking suck things. ho-hum.
Poor bastards.
(sue me, I've got karma to spare)
well another question could be how accurately could I shoot, or how good are my reaction times, or even how much is the line of fire refracted by the atmosphere. but that not really the point is it?
surely if the monkey is far enough away then the time that the light indicating the start of the fall takes to reach the hunter will cause him to miss high? it would also seem that the curvature of the earth would cause the hunter to aim low. surely these two effects don't cancel each other out completely?
that fact was to be decided in court. it never was - they settled. So the jury's still out on that one, literally.
Microsoft: "hey this java stuff is pretty cool, maybe we can use it to replace VB"
...
Sun: "Sure, fork out $50M for the license, and do a reference implementation for us on windows. oh, and fix all the bugs for us while you're at it."
Microsoft: "ok, we'll promote it by shipping a VM in IE, and produce some dev tools too, how's that?"
hardly disable. Microsoft created a VM that supported all but two of the technologies that Sun specified. Those two were RMI and JNI, both of which inherrantly break the 'write once, run anywhere' paradigm (on the client - RMI requires security that Sun didn't specify, and JNI requires native code which doesn't run everywhere. Besides those, the Microsoft VM was, for a while at least, the most complete VM around. Especially with respect to AWY which Microsoft had to completely rewrite to fix all the stupid bugs and performance problems the Sun engineers put in there.
It's still undecided as to whether or not Microsoft violated the licensing agreement. Sure, Sun claimed as such, but the case was settled without a decision.
He can't hear you. There's a blizzard going on down there right now.
The real question is: why did the MPEG group choose a technology that was patented, or at least had a patent pending? Shouldn't it be up to the standards body to ensure that they're not going to screw over all of their users by forcing them to pay in the future for something that's bound to become a standard?
If we don't want this to happen again in the future, shouldn't we reject future standards that are based on patentable technologies?
something that MS and Netscape have supported since IE4 & NS6 and that Opera still doesn't have support for (remember: the DOM includes APIs for changing docment properties, not just displaying them). Let's hope that they've got it right this time.
I can't think of any way to parallelize the iterative reverse/add process itself...
okay, i gott ask, how are you parallelizing this? it seems like a serial operation to me.
apt-get install postresql
it won't help, but I didn't mention non-MS platforms or clustering in my post. I specifically said that you can get all the MS products in a single package for far less than the total cost of included products (all OSs, desktop apps, dev tools, backoffice servers, etc...). nothing more, nothing less. besides, what's a 'windlot'?
nah, the most you ever have to pay for an MS development machine is 3K (+1K/year) for MSDN universal, that get's you everything you need including some free developer support. that's chep compared to most unix dev kits. they also have volume licensing for large companies, but I've only even needed one ;-)
would these be the same beziers that the Win32 GDI has supported since NT3.1 shipped in 1993?
sure, the unicode char L'A' (0x0041) has a '\0' in it. most kernel API's take 8-bit, zero terminated strings. they are not unicode compatible.
grain of salt? the guy's a fucking moron. firstly he should be installing XP, a consumer OS for a consumer girlfriend (not 2K, never designed to be installed by consumers), secondly why did he upgrade 3 different versions of IE? why not just install 2Ksp3 which includes IE6. dumbass. then, he should know an OEM setup from the real thing, no wonder he got a whole bunch of adverts for stuff, and a blank admin password. has this guy never installed a REAL version of win2k before?
eh? what about all the unicode chars with '\0' or '/' in them (excluding L'\0' and L'/', of course)? how are they supported?
Some people, really.
I should have been a bit more specific with my question.
Firstly I want to use the DVI input on the display because I want to get the highest fidelity possible. I also want to be able to use the natvie resolution of the screen because I don't want the screen to have to scale the video image. The problem with using the DVI interface is that the DVI spec allows the screen to tell the video card which DVI resolutions it supports, and even though the screen may have a native resolution of 1366x768 (16:9) it may not advertise that mode to the card, and even if it does the driver or the card may not support that mode.
I know that most DVI-capable video cards will support video modes larger than that of the screen (1600x1200, for example), but as far as I know the selection is limited when the DVI interface is being used.
I know of the PowerStrip utility and its ability to create custom resolutions, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the display is capable of being driven at those resolutions.
cable length is not a problem, the computer is not going to be accessible...