they intensity is analog on a certain level. but the overall screen must be digital; you can address each individual element; something you cannot do on a crt.
You can't scan one line at a time; LCDS do not just update changes. That'd be cool, but it's not how the ywork.
Re:Other ways the market should be working
on
LCD Price Fixing?
·
· Score: 1
People don't care, many of them. If you complain to the company enough, you can return it for a new one.
I myself insist on firing them up in the store, and checking for defects.. despite the salespeople telling me the pixels are "normal" and "will happen anyway within 30 days"
The reason it's not for production use isn't because it is necessarily crash prone... it's because it can break drastically between minor versions as features are added/changed.
So then the phone on your desk at your company would be illegal too... because to the outside world, because your extension doesn't show up on caller-ID? THe PBX effectively performs a feature similar to NAT in the IP world.
Concealing the origin of a telecommunication service.. we need to look up the legal definition of "ORIGIN" as related to similar telecommunications laws.
I would think concealin the origin would be things such as telephone diverters (bridging two phone lines somewhere to hide your real location), hacking some network to hide where you really are, etcetera.
Then again, it's extremely big-brotherish to DEMAND that every conversation has to be recorded.
Soon we'll have to use networks of real people whispering to each other so that they can't pass laws about it.
that the public accepts reasons like this as valid; the only reason wiretaps were allowed in the first place was because it made sense in some situation.. like "Hey, we are trying to solve this here crime, and we think this guy is using thsi here phone, can we listen in? OH cool."
Now the ability to snoop has become a feature that must be present or the government has a fit.
X *is* fragmented, so is the unix desktop world.. and it's not going to change.
Now, that doesn't mean there aren't good desktops... KDE is fantastic.. and gnome is getting really good too.
I guess the point is.. if you look at modern linux based systems now... they are in many ways totally different operating environments, at least insofar as the average desktop user is concerned.
Mandrake has it's thing; Redhat has it's thing; Debian has it's thing kinda..... we aren't talking about a single system.. so let's not pretend that new stuff isn't good.
If a new font system is available, and it's cool, and Mandrake wants to use it, great. If not, great. Same for everyone else. IT's stilly to debate whether or note "yet another something or other" is good or bad; thoes that are good and people want end up being used. Those that fail, fail.. and in the end, we have better stuff.
Is a degree in computing science required? Will actual work expeirence substitute for this? Where do I go? Where do I learn?
I mean, I know many will say "you can't learn from courses".. but... as a professional systems guy.. where do I go when I want to step up to mainframes? It's not the kind of thing you can just bang together in your spare time.
and equally possible that they are simply tired of selling some stupid camera/mouse/whatever, and having it returned because "it doesn't work in windows xp"
- ALl they would hvae to do is port darwin, and recompile the rest. That's not the momentous task you make it out to be... in fact, it's one of the reasons for using a microkernel in the first place. - Developers would NOT be writing for a "new OS". They would be compiling for a different target architecture.... not the same thing at all. Look at linux, and all the apps that work in ppc, linux, alpha, etctera.
- The PPC was not 68k compatable.. they had to emulate the 68k completely.
Trying ot talk about converting between all the terms is meaningless in this context...
the proper term for data transmission is bits per second. Extrapolating what that MEANS TO YOU is application specific. You have to read the specs for the medium involved.
100Mbps ethernet is an entirely accurate description of what it is.. it's an ether that can carry 100 million bits per second, exactly. Nobody sait it means 2 hosts can communicate at 100Mbps, and nobody said what higher layer overhead is involved.. it only means that, when fully loaded with multiple busy hosts, it will handle 100 million bits per second.
It's silly to move between kilobits to kilobytes.. be cause generally a kilobit is 1000 bits (data transmission term) and a kilobyte is a memory term (1024 bytes)..... and we don't know what overhead there is to transfer a byte in the first place.
that depends *entirely* on all the overhead, spacing (as you said) plus the protocols involved....
That's why we talk about bits. it's how many useful bits can the medium/protocol/whatever spew out per second.... that's why we avoid talking about bytes altogether.
No.. they do it because, fundamentally, you are transmitting bits, not bytes. how you look at the bitstream coming out the other end of the pipe is up to the receiving gear.. if it's bits, bites, kilobits, etcetera.
It's not some weird thing to do with stop bits... stop bits were a factor in like, rs232 serial connections, and their cousins.
kilo=1024 came about only because of MEMORY, which we address using base2 systems... so they just took nice round numbers in base 2 and gave them metric prefixes.
Everyone overcomplicates it.. it's simpler.
kilobyte = 1024 octets...
kilobit = 1000 bits.. used for data transmission. We shouldn't specify data transmission mediums in Bytes.. because they send bits. We shouldnt'specify memory in bits (unless it's a 1-bit addressable memory, of course)
Seriously. WEP isn't even real security.. if you need security, you use it at another layer.....
Just because they are using 802.11b doesn't mean they aren't using anything else. They also haven't said what network protocol, or what mode 802.11b will be in, or what software they will use to do it... do you want all that too?
Those tiles are heat resistant. They just don't heat up. They are not good heat conductors either... they are insulating tiles. Making chip packaging out of those would ensure you turn your chip into slag in short order, even under very low power, because NO heat would escape.
Umm... between applications that support it, yes. And text selection/copy in X is NOT the same as copy/paste in windows, sorry...
And what's a DOS box, exactly? DOS hasn't been used underneath windows for quite some time. There is this thing called a "command shell" that you might be confusing with a "Dos box" becuase it uses a similar command interpreter... is that what you mean? It supports copy and paste just fine, by the way.
We cannot say tht "what is needed for life to evolve is arbitrarily complex structures". We don't KNOW that.
Even if we assume that our current theories about life on earth are true... that says absolutely nothing about life on other planets or based on some different chemistry. Yes, we like to think it's possible.. but to state it as fact is rediculous.
When we find silicon based life forms that breathe methane, or whatever.. then we can start hypothesizing.. but until we find SOME other life based on SOME other system, postulating that it could exist is rediculous.
Nobody can access the real internet except for people who are on it.
That "free" access is because the library chooses to be on the Internet, and allow you free access.
Similarly, they could put themselves on Internet2, and allow you free access to that as well, if they saw a need to.
You are missing the entire point of what the internet is.
Internet2 is not as ubiquitous as the Internet, i'll grant that.. but it's no less or more 'private or public'. I can assure you there are big chunks of the internet that are indeed very private by your definition.
Every link out there is private, in one way or another.
I own a link between two buildings, which is "on the net".
How is internet2 private? it's no more private than the Internet you are using... it's just you can't get dialup to it at the moment because.. THERE IS NO MARKET, and no point.
There are two ways to look at this argument... both totally different.
First.. interface technologies:
SCSI and IDE are different. IDE has controller hardware on the drive, and the IDE interface is nothing more than a mere i/o port. SCSI has a dedicated controller, and the drives have less logic. In theory. Also in theory, (and usually in practice), scsi is better at handling multiple drives.... the controller & scsi bus can take care of all kinds of multi drive operations without burdening the rest of the system. With IDE, obviously, as each drive is it's own controller, multi-drive operations require the cpu to do more stuff. This can be mitigated, of course, with IDE raid controllers and whatnot that use IDE drives but are in fact an actual controller... and take the load off the system.
IN practice, however, drives with SCSI interfaces are generally manufactured for business/server markets, and are built with better parts/better testing, and hence, don't fail as much. They are also built with faster components and whatnot, again because they are in the server market.
So.. these arguments always turn into flamewars. The fact is, scsi can do more, and scsi drives tend to be more reliable.... (which has to do with market pressure and NOT the scsi interface) There is no real big reason, however, why and IDE raid card & drives cannot provide the same quality of service.
Slashdot Mirror
they intensity is analog on a certain level. but the overall screen must be digital; you can address each individual element; something you cannot do on a crt.
You can't scan one line at a time;
LCDS do not just update changes. That'd be cool, but it's not how the ywork.
People don't care, many of them. If you complain to the company enough, you can return it for a new one.
I myself insist on firing them up in the store, and checking for defects.. despite the salespeople telling me the pixels are "normal" and "will happen anyway within 30 days"
bunk.
The reason it's not for production use isn't because it is necessarily crash prone... it's because it can break drastically between minor versions as features are added/changed.
So then the phone on your desk at your company would be illegal too... because to the outside world, because your extension doesn't show up on caller-ID? THe PBX effectively performs a feature similar to NAT in the IP world.
Concealing the origin of a telecommunication service.. we need to look up the legal definition of "ORIGIN" as related to similar telecommunications laws.
I would think concealin the origin would be things such as telephone diverters (bridging two phone lines somewhere to hide your real location), hacking some network to hide where you really are, etcetera.
Then again, it's extremely big-brotherish to DEMAND that every conversation has to be recorded.
Soon we'll have to use networks of real people whispering to each other so that they can't pass laws about it.
that the public accepts reasons like this as valid; the only reason wiretaps were allowed in the first place was because it made sense in some situation.. like
"Hey, we are trying to solve this here crime, and we think this guy is using thsi here phone, can we listen in? OH cool."
Now the ability to snoop has become a feature that must be present or the government has a fit.
X *is* fragmented, so is the unix desktop world.. and it's not going to change.
Now, that doesn't mean there aren't good desktops...
KDE is fantastic.. and gnome is getting really good too.
I guess the point is.. if you look at modern linux based systems now... they are in many ways totally different operating environments, at least insofar as the average desktop user is concerned.
Mandrake has it's thing; Redhat has it's thing; Debian has it's thing kinda..... we aren't talking about a single system.. so let's not pretend that new stuff isn't good.
If a new font system is available, and it's cool, and Mandrake wants to use it, great. If not, great. Same for everyone else. IT's stilly to debate whether or note "yet another something or other" is good or bad; thoes that are good and people want end up being used. Those that fail, fail.. and in the end, we have better stuff.
it depends on what you view as the game.
Some view the game as the collective data that the server sends and receives.. and that's it; the client is just a stepping stone.
Others, the majority, view it as "whatever the authors intended"
How do I become a "qualified" mainframe guy?
Is a degree in computing science required? Will actual work expeirence substitute for this? Where do I go? Where do I learn?
I mean, I know many will say "you can't learn from courses".. but... as a professional systems guy.. where do I go when I want to step up to mainframes? It's not the kind of thing you can just bang together in your spare time.
and equally possible that they are simply tired of selling some stupid camera/mouse/whatever, and having it returned because "it doesn't work in windows xp"
Which we never do, because all transmission mediums are inherently serial.
We don't have any inherently parallel data transmission mediums... we have serial ones, and when we use them side by side, we call it parallel.
- ALl they would hvae to do is port darwin, and recompile the rest. That's not the momentous task you make it out to be... in fact, it's one of the reasons for using a microkernel in the first place.
- Developers would NOT be writing for a "new OS". They would be compiling for a different target architecture.... not the same thing at all. Look at linux, and all the apps that work in ppc, linux, alpha, etctera.
- The PPC was not 68k compatable.. they had to emulate the 68k completely.
Trying ot talk about converting between all the terms is meaningless in this context...
the proper term for data transmission is bits per second. Extrapolating what that MEANS TO YOU is application specific. You have to read the specs for the medium involved.
100Mbps ethernet is an entirely accurate description of what it is.. it's an ether that can carry 100 million bits per second, exactly. Nobody sait it means 2 hosts can communicate at 100Mbps, and nobody said what higher layer overhead is involved.. it only means that, when fully loaded with multiple busy hosts, it will handle 100 million bits per second.
It's silly to move between kilobits to kilobytes.. be cause generally a kilobit is 1000 bits (data transmission term) and a kilobyte is a memory term (1024 bytes)..... and we don't know what overhead there is to transfer a byte in the first place.
Uhh... nooo...
that depends *entirely* on all the overhead, spacing (as you said) plus the protocols involved....
That's why we talk about bits. it's how many useful bits can the medium/protocol/whatever spew out per second.... that's why we avoid talking about bytes altogether.
No.. they do it because, fundamentally, you are transmitting bits, not bytes. how you look at the bitstream coming out the other end of the pipe is up to the receiving gear.. if it's bits, bites, kilobits, etcetera.
It's not some weird thing to do with stop bits... stop bits were a factor in like, rs232 serial connections, and their cousins.
kilo=1024 came about only because of MEMORY, which we address using base2 systems... so they just took nice round numbers in base 2 and gave them metric prefixes.
Everyone overcomplicates it.. it's simpler.
kilobyte = 1024 octets...
kilobit = 1000 bits.. used for data transmission. We shouldn't specify data transmission mediums in Bytes.. because they send bits. We shouldnt'specify memory in bits (unless it's a 1-bit addressable memory, of course)
Seriously. WEP isn't even real security.. if you need security, you use it at another layer.....
Just because they are using 802.11b doesn't mean they aren't using anything else. They also haven't said what network protocol, or what mode 802.11b will be in, or what software they will use to do it... do you want all that too?
What you miss is this:
If they were talking about not allowing the RF filters to be sold, we would be outraged.
People SHOULD suffer the consequences of their actions.
If the RIAA started suing people who were actually distributing copyrighted material without permission, we woudln't be complainig....
but when they go after the technology instead, we get pissy.
Uhh
Except for the contract you have regarding paying for the service, which you had to sign in order to get the service in the first place.
This isn't about stealing channels already sent to you without your permission.....
it's about signing up for PPV, then asking for PPV shows, but blocking the device from regsitering the request with the cable company.
I'm not so sure...
Those tiles are heat resistant. They just don't heat up. They are not good heat conductors either... they are insulating tiles. Making chip packaging out of those would ensure you turn your chip into slag in short order, even under very low power, because NO heat would escape.
Umm... between applications that support it, yes.
And text selection/copy in X is NOT the same as copy/paste in windows, sorry...
And what's a DOS box, exactly? DOS hasn't been used underneath windows for quite some time. There is this thing called a "command shell" that you might be confusing with a "Dos box" becuase it uses a similar command interpreter... is that what you mean?
It supports copy and paste just fine, by the way.
Ever occur to you that he was just saying he prefers his current, old-school product to this new one?
Why does it have to turn into a tirade about gun control and shit? Jeeze..
But it still can't do policy routing.
We cannot say tht "what is needed for life to evolve is arbitrarily complex structures". We don't KNOW that.
Even if we assume that our current theories about life on earth are true... that says absolutely nothing about life on other planets or based on some different chemistry. Yes, we like to think it's possible.. but to state it as fact is rediculous.
When we find silicon based life forms that breathe methane, or whatever.. then we can start hypothesizing.. but until we find SOME other life based on SOME other system, postulating that it could exist is rediculous.
Star Control 2 was a video game.
Nobody can access the real internet except for people who are on it.
That "free" access is because the library chooses to be on the Internet, and allow you free access.
Similarly, they could put themselves on Internet2, and allow you free access to that as well, if they saw a need to.
You are missing the entire point of what the internet is.
Internet2 is not as ubiquitous as the Internet, i'll grant that.. but it's no less or more 'private or public'. I can assure you there are big chunks of the internet that are indeed very private by your definition.
Every link out there is private, in one way or another.
I own a link between two buildings, which is "on the net".
How is internet2 private? it's no more private than the Internet you are using... it's just you can't get dialup to it at the moment because.. THERE IS NO MARKET, and no point.
There are two ways to look at this argument... both totally different.
First.. interface technologies:
SCSI and IDE are different. IDE has controller hardware on the drive, and the IDE interface is nothing more than a mere i/o port. SCSI has a dedicated controller, and the drives have less logic. In theory.
Also in theory, (and usually in practice), scsi is better at handling multiple drives.... the controller & scsi bus can take care of all kinds of multi drive operations without burdening the rest of the system. With IDE, obviously, as each drive is it's own controller, multi-drive operations require the cpu to do more stuff. This can be mitigated, of course, with IDE raid controllers and whatnot that use IDE drives but are in fact an actual controller... and take the load off the system.
IN practice, however, drives with SCSI interfaces are generally manufactured for business/server markets, and are built with better parts/better testing, and hence, don't fail as much. They are also built with faster components and whatnot, again because they are in the server market.
So.. these arguments always turn into flamewars. The fact is, scsi can do more, and scsi drives tend to be more reliable.... (which has to do with market pressure and NOT the scsi interface)
There is no real big reason, however, why and IDE raid card & drives cannot provide the same quality of service.