the video card is taking most of the grunt work of decoding the video from the processor. At least, that was how I thought it was working these days.
AFAIK most cards will only decode mpeg2, if that. There's been talk of adding mpeg4 decoding but I don't think it's been done yet. But unless you're building a machine with a ridiculously slow CPU decoding anything short of H.264 is not a problem.
A GeForce 2 will be more than adequate in terms of performance, but it'll probably have terrible TV-out picture quality. It's only fairly recently that much attention has been paid to the TV-out quality so a newer graphics card is likely to look a lot better.
MythTV is great if all you want to do is CAPTURE video. I also want to playback the captured
video __ON MY TV___. TiVo can do this. If you read the MythTV HOWTO and even go down the
path of trying to deploy one of these, you will quickly find that TV output has pretty much
been ignored. What cards really actually work? What driver building hell do I have to go
through to get s-video or composite out to actually work? at a normal NTSC scan rate?
What are you on about? Most MythTV users output to TV. It's not hard.
It is similar. But the goal of astroturfing is to create support for something by giving the impression of support (by apparently "neutral" third parties) where none exists. It's fundamentally dishonest. The goal of viral marketing is to create support by getting customers to spread the word themselves, usually by engaging their curiosity with something mysterious. The best viral marketing campaigns are not dishonest, though lately companies have taken to getting people to spread the word by givening them prizes or even just paying them which can get dishonest if those people are pretending that they don't have a business relationship with the marketing team.
One version I've read...
After the rocket failed to fire, Nedelin ordered technicians to go service the rocket and try again. As he stood by the pad watching, someone re-cycled the launch sequence. The launch clock had meanwhile counted from T-Minus to T-Plus, so the rocket's (perfectly functioning) second stage ignited, ending Marshal Nedelin and many others.
That version seems to be a gross simplification (at best) compared to most descriptions I've seen (e.g. from
RussianSpaceWeb.com,
Encyclopedia Astronautica (though that is one of the early accounts of the disaster by a westerner, with little detail on the cause),
Aerospaceweb.org, and
Wikipedia).
Every IDE hard drive actually has the drive controller electronics bolted to a circuit board on the bottom of it. That's why the "IDE interface" is such a basic thing on your PC, whether it's integrated onto the motherboard or is a seperate PCI card. Most of the real work is done on the drive's electronics.
That's also why IDE is called IDE. It's an acronym for Integrated Drive Electronics.
There's nothing wrong with my sense of humor, how about your ability to tell a joke? Something along the lines of 'I don't know man, I kind of like the idea of being able to say "I just raped me some Metallica"' would have been better. Not that I'm saying that's great or anything, but you need to be funny if you want people to laugh.
Oh, and the devil's advocate position in a discussion is not normally a comedic one so if you want to go that way (especially in a written medium) you need to be more outrageous.
"This was a particularly noteworthy accomplishment, because it demonstrated the amount of computer bandwidth (1 gigabyte/second) needed by the Australia and California research groups to observe and grab a fast-moving sperm with virtually no detectible delay in image transmission between the two laboratories."
It seems even the people who did this have no idea of the difference between bandwidth and latency. The above quote is from the original press release.
I don't think they're confused at all. That sentence states that they needed 1GB/s at low latency. I guess the bandwidth part is more noteworthy, particularly if it is over the net as implied. Low latency is not particularly difficult to achieve.
So established businesses in London, who have contributed tax dollars for years to the city do not get to benefit from the event being there.
Of course they do. The increase in tourism will benefit a large proportion of London businesses. What they don't get to do is associate themselves with the Olympics without permission. There's nothing unreasonable about that. What's unreasonable is enacting a law to cover the situation (it should already be covered by existing trademark legislation).
I don't think it fits well at all. Firstly that definition is archaic (though still used in the phrase "rape and pillage". Secondly, where is the force?
Copyright infringement and piracy are synonymous. I think you may be confused by the fact that piracy has multiple meanings, as do the word "bark" and "desert".
You're right, of course, but I think it's worth noting that this meaning for piracy came about because content owners wanted to associate copyright infringement with a much more serious crime. Now the nautical crime of piracy is rare so it's lost it's emotive effect and the same content owners are trying to conflate copyright infringement with theft and stealing. What next? Would you be so acquiescent if they start to call copyright infringement rape?
CD -> Sharp implement
Book -> Hot implement, wet implement
If I lend a CD to a friend I do so with the implicit, unstated assurance that if they lose or damage it, they will buy me a new one.
It's not hard to keep hot and wet away from books. It is hard to keep sharp away from CDs. Any small particle of metal, glass, rock, etc may be sharp enough. It's also a lot harder to detect damage on DVDs in particular. CDs are usually ok if there's no visible damage, but that's not the case with DVDs (or magnetic tapes). That means you may not know your media has been damaged until well after it's been returned to you. When you lend a CD to a friend and then find it scratched 6 months down the track, so you go after your friend for a replacement?
OTOH, books are very easy to check for damage.
Libraries lend out original copies of books, and CDs, and DVDs, and other media. They don't seem to require special procedures due to the nature of the media.
Libraries are publically funded. That makes them big juicy targets for lawsuits. Besides, in long run the only people who lose from damaged library media are the users so the libraries aren't as concerned. Finally, as others have mentioned, libraries have stronger recourse to get compensation than I do.
I'd also point out that I no longer rent DVDs due to the large number of problems I've had with damaged ones.
The study essentially is showing that there are more dictionary lists in Google than there are in Yahoo.
But Yahoo claim to have indexed more than twice as many pages as Google so how can this be? Do you think Google is focusing on indexing dictionary lists? Or that Yahoo are ignoring them in particular? If Yahoo's index is more comprehensive then they should have more sites indexed whatever the type of site in question. Maybe it's not valid to generalize from dictionary list sites to all sites, but I don't think it's clearly invalid either. Rather I think the big problem with this "study" is that they do not consider the quality of the results in terms of relevance to query. Google may be returning more results because a lot of those results are spurious.
How do you come to that conclusion? From a users point of view the set of pages returned must the set of pages that are available. If a page is not returned it is not available, obviously. If a page is returned it clearly is available.
She is american at this point, I said she is Russian born. Her name and accent are too obvious to me (I am from Ukraine myself.)
Bulgarian born according to the article. I guessed you were Eastern European, but that still leaves a lot of options.
But do, go ahead and explain to me how will the methods she proposed increase the atmospheric pressure if none of the living plants will survive on Mars even for a week without breathing?
The idea is to increase the global temperature to the point where the southern ice cap (primarily CO2) melts. That's what will provide the pressure increase.
If the goal is to create a mutant plant, that doesn't breathe oxygen, she didn't state that in her proposal.
If they could get the temperature up above freezing (and IIRC they did think that would be possible on the equator during summer) they might be able to use aquatic plants. But as I said, I don't think open life is the primary point.
It seems to me that we are going to have a tough time determining if we can do anything about the climate change if don't attribute blame and determine where the problem lies.
Yes and no. Certainly knowing what's causing the current situation is vital, but at the moment people are focusing on that issue rather than the big picture. There's not enough attention being paid to the "what can we do" side of things, particular by the media. Essentially the blame game is getting in the way.
If natural greenhouse gas emitters are blowing out 99% of the greenhouse gases then human behavior is an insignificant factor. In that case we need a technical solution and not a behavior change.
Probably both. We know our current fossil fuel usage is not sustainable (economically) and even if it's not the primary cause of the current warming trend it's certainly contributing. The sooner we find alternate fuels the better really.
If human emissions are the primary source then a behavior change is in order.
That might not be enough. Even if we are the primary cause, cutting our emissions to zero might not be enough to actually reverse the process even now (things like the Siberian permafrost thaw could be enough to keep the warming cycle going). So again I wouldn't be suprised if both a technical measures and behavioural change is necessary. What I am sure of is that time is running out.
Even if you're right about the plants that doesn't make any difference because the goal of this exercise is to make the planet more habitable for us and increased atmospheric pressure and average temperature will do that regardless of whether it's enough for unprotected life to survive.
So basically your original comment, which btw was gratuitously condescending, still isn't relevant. And I assume by now you've realised she's not Russian?
Ok fair enough. But she specifically addresses the fact that it will be a C02 atmosphere and yet still believes they can find plants which will grow. So you are simply disagreeing that it is possible to find plants that will survive in a atmosphere with little or no oxygen, right?
the girl was definitely talking about algae, grass and some 'rough' weeds, not bacteria.
No. The reporter mentioned grass, the researcher did not. This article does not mention grass or other Earth life, so I think we can assume that the reporter got carried away. I expect that introducing Earth life is not part of the plan (or at least not expected to work).
The real question is: What is the magnitude of human emitted Greenhouse gasses retaliative to natural greenhouse gas emitters (volcanos, meteorites, etc.)?
Not really. Attributing blame is unlikely to achieve anything useful. The significant questions are: "is the current climate changing?", and "can we and should we do anything about it?". The answer to the first one seems to be yes. The answer to the second one is complex. What will the consequences of continued climate change be? Can we have a significant effect (this is where your question comes in)? What are the economic consequences of the changes to our behaviour that would be necessary and how do they compare to the consequences of not changing our behaviour?
Note that they are not advocating trying to produce a breathable atmosphere, merely an atmosphere thick and warm enough to allow exploration using only oxygen masks.
Slashdot Mirror
And a calculator.
Oh, and the devil's advocate position in a discussion is not normally a comedic one so if you want to go that way (especially in a written medium) you need to be more outrageous.
In a barred spiral galaxy the bar lines within the plane of the galaxy by definition. If it doesn't then it's not a barred spiral.
By "pages available" do you mean "page containing the terms on the net"? I assumed you meant "pages available from the search engine in question".
I don't think it fits well at all. Firstly that definition is archaic (though still used in the phrase "rape and pillage". Secondly, where is the force?
OTOH, books are very easy to check for damage.
Libraries are publically funded. That makes them big juicy targets for lawsuits. Besides, in long run the only people who lose from damaged library media are the users so the libraries aren't as concerned. Finally, as others have mentioned, libraries have stronger recourse to get compensation than I do.I'd also point out that I no longer rent DVDs due to the large number of problems I've had with damaged ones.
Even if you're right about the plants that doesn't make any difference because the goal of this exercise is to make the planet more habitable for us and increased atmospheric pressure and average temperature will do that regardless of whether it's enough for unprotected life to survive. So basically your original comment, which btw was gratuitously condescending, still isn't relevant. And I assume by now you've realised she's not Russian?
Ok fair enough. But she specifically addresses the fact that it will be a C02 atmosphere and yet still believes they can find plants which will grow. So you are simply disagreeing that it is possible to find plants that will survive in a atmosphere with little or no oxygen, right?
Note that they are not advocating trying to produce a breathable atmosphere, merely an atmosphere thick and warm enough to allow exploration using only oxygen masks.