Speech recognition is one of the worst means of input there is for a computer.
True. However, keyboards are also one of the worst means of input there is for a computer. So are mice. So are joysticks. Sometimes a mouse is better than a keyboard. Sometimes a joystick is better than a mouse. Sometimes voice is better than a keyboard. I want all of the above and more.
Don't let the fact that speech recognition currently sucks cloud your judgement - keyboards used to suck too (hence QWERTY).
also, jpegs might be good for you, but photographers out in the field really aren't going to like throwing out that information.
The camera will save off both RAW and JPEG simultaneously. Actually that's a trick of the Digic II processor, which us mere mortals may be able to afford inside the Canon 20D (which is "only" the price of a nice PC).
I'm not inclined to take this law at face value. Distribution of copyright materials against the wishes of the copyright owner is already illegal. Tracing the IP address of a file sharer is probably easier than tracing an email address. I doubt the addition of a misdemeanour to the existing charges is the point.
I think it's a trick to make it easier for the **AA to, for example, subpoena ISPs for people's real names and addresses. Any California lawyers here know if this legislation will indeed make bringing cases for copyright infrigement easier for the **AA?
When I want to see the mainstream media dissected I usually go to... the mainstream media. I'm English.
The BBC, particularly such gems as Dateline London on BBC News 24 (foreign correspondents for foreign news organisations based in the UK give the foreigners view of UK events - fascinating), generally give the facts relevant to both sides. I also regularly read The Guardian and The Independent, both left-of-centre, but which also both regularly dissect the rest of the media. I force myself to read other papers from time to time and catch ABC World News Tonight (what a fucking joke that name is) on the BBC for a broader view of events, which I mentally correlate with the reports in my preferred media to set the parameters of my internal bias filters for myself.
I've noted most of the replies are US-centric. Is the mainstream media over there really so bad that you have to turn to some amateur venting their spleen on a blog to get the truth?
Are people really incapable of absorbing information from a range of sources and deciding for themselves where the bias lies and what the truth is? If they are then the education system and democracy itself are severely fucked up.
My favorite was from my professor in Applied Electricity. We were in the second week, going over Ohm's Law, I asked how the equations worked when the resistance dropped to zero, like in a superconductor. He said that it was impossible to have no resistance in a wire, "super" conductors cannot exist. (He even used his fingers to make quotation marks in the air when he said "super," because he'd never heard the word before). This was two months ago.
As you're in your know-it-all phase, show me a material which exhibits zero resistance. Not one which breaks Ohm's law or one with almost zero resistance mind. I want zero resistance.
I've been playing with Mindstorms for a few years. There are basically two approaches used for programming the brick: Using the Lego firmware and replacing it. The graphical Lego programming language provided with the kit compiles to bytecodes which run on the Lego firmware. It's not very fast or flexible. The brick is a Hitachi H8 at heart, so writing code for it is preferable if you know how.
NQC (Not Quite C) is compiled to Lego bytecodes.
BrickOS programs are compiled to H8 with gcc. There are also Forth and Java environments.
Given the range of options available (for *nixen, Windows, Mac...) I'd have to say in this case "mainstream" must mean "Microsoft".
These people even extend security to their website - ensuring the black text disappears into the surounding brown background. This is, I presume, to deter post-apocalyptic script-kiddies wishing to deface the site.
> There is no indication of merit or pride
> in the title,
Really? Perhaps I have misunderstood something....
Why didn't he title it as something like
"A minor correction/reinterprtation of the
Lorentz transformations"?, for example? Or "The Ether, Considered Harmful"?
Perhaps "A reinterprtation of the Lorentz transformations" would be a suitable title, but I really don't see why you think he should call it "minor". That judgment should be left to the scientific community.
I think neither pride nor modesty have a place in scientific papers. They should simply be a statment of your research. The title "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" was an accurate, unemotional description of the paper. It was a paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, after all.
Perhaps you meant "boast" as a transitive verb merely describing a feature, as in "this switch boasts 5 10/100 ethernet ports", but I doubt that as you wrote "exessivley boastful". Boasting implies excessive pride, self-admination and glorification. I simply don't see that in the title.
p.s. I apologise for the, ah, slightly rude tone of my previous reply. I stand by the points I made though. I blame the wine...
Actually, the title:
"On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"
is exceedingly boastful.
[...]
What an oddly broad topic to choose, unless
you are claiming to be saying something
rather profound.
Exceedinly boastful? The title is an accurate description of the content - it was a new model for the electrodynamics of moving bodies. There is no indication of merit or pride in the title, it's you who ascribes those attributes. You then attempt to denigrate Einstein for describing what he has done, apparently purely on the basis that his ideas were novel and better than those which went before.
Perhaps if you ever achieve something noteworthy you'll realise that stating what you have done in an appropriate forum is not boasting. Saying something profound is not boasting. If you think it is the problem lies with your self-esteem.
You may have a tiny penis, but that doesn't mean those of us with a monster dick should hide the fact.
Sorry guys... link is broken... I went on the assumption that the problem with the link was the missing slash after ".com"... but I guess that wasn't it! Apparently the original poster is just an idiot.
sorry, my hard drive is still gonna be faster than a network connection
Are you sure? Gigabit ethernet is already faster than most hard drives sold today. You need a Raptor or a RAID array to beat it. And that's over copper.
All I have to say is "Lan Party." Games consoles will never have people stringing Cat5 across living rooms to stuff 15 geeks itching to blast each other away.
OK, not with 15 people, but I was playing networked console games eight years ago. Lugging my TV across the hall and shifting furniture around. A couple of Playstations linked together and two TVs and you have an awesome 1 on 1 racing experience, even way back in '97. Of course you can also have 4-player Tekken or whatever with just one console if you prefer.
Re:Do these HW companies want to be SW companies?
on
Build Your Robot Online
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Do these two clown companies think they are selling hardware or software? They have a great hardware idea, but why ruin it all by requiring their proprietary Windows-only "easy-to-use" software?
Yeah! Great idea! Why don't Amazon open-source their software too? Oh, wait it's because it's their fucking business. Hadn't you noticed that increasingly businesses use custom software and the sucessful ones have the best custom software? Without their software (and patents) Amazon are just another box shifter. Without this software Emachineshop is just another machine shop. Their entire fucking business model is based on rapid prototyping with their custom software. Why should they give it away?
Damn, now I've blown my mod points for this thread. All that reading of crap at -1 gone to waste. Perhaps I should have just modded you down as the troll you are.
Surely [more RAM modules is] potentially slower, not necessarily slower.
No, it is necessarily slower. Maybe so small a speed difference that the available mobo RAM timing options aren't fine-grained enough to even tell the difference [...]
I get that it will take the signals longer to propagate, but if you still get your signal within one clock cycle then surely it just doesn't matter from a performance point of view. You could see it with an oscilloscope, but not a benchmark. You seemed to be suggesting that more sticks automatically led to slower PC performance, rather than a reduced overhead for overclocking. Perhaps you were talking about a different "slower". But then...
If it works with several sticks at at a particular set of timings then surely it will be equally as fast as with one stick with those same timings. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems logical to me.
Again, that's what I said. Right. I'm confused now -- you start off diagreeing, then repeat what you (seem to) disagree with as correct. AM I misunderstanding you?
I think we must be misunderstanding each other, because we agree on the above, which is for the 90% of computer users who run at stock timings (which will likely be fine no matter how many sticks you use) the important point.
Whatever, more modules in general leads to slower access time. More sticks (modules) of RAM adds to the capacitance driven by the memory controller, and therefore increases the propagation delay on those traces. The more connected modules the longer total trace length driven by each IO buffer of the memeory controller. The difference is probably negligible for all but the edgiest overclocker, but there's always a speed advantage for fewer modules.
Surely it's potentially slower, not necessarily slower. More specifically, you won't be able to push the timings as far with several sticks as you could with just one. If it works with several sticks at at a particular set of timings then surely it will be equally as fast as with one stick with those same timings. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems logical to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Or it seems to be the rule that it's only the open-source developers we hear from directly, without being filtered through a bunch of marketroids.
True. However, keyboards are also one of the worst means of input there is for a computer. So are mice. So are joysticks. Sometimes a mouse is better than a keyboard. Sometimes a joystick is better than a mouse. Sometimes voice is better than a keyboard. I want all of the above and more.
Don't let the fact that speech recognition currently sucks cloud your judgement - keyboards used to suck too (hence QWERTY).
I understand Telephonix and Phonix are working with Getafix to make a potion to do just that.
I guess they shouldn't have written this voice-recognition app using drop-down menus instead of arrays and checkboxes instead boolean variables then.
Oh, hang on...
The camera will save off both RAW and JPEG simultaneously. Actually that's a trick of the Digic II processor, which us mere mortals may be able to afford inside the Canon 20D (which is "only" the price of a nice PC).
Given the other option is to stop selling Windows in the EU, this is not very surprising.
Obviously as soon as I read that I searched for pitbull on images.google.com. I should have heeded your advice.
The first result is some guy with his cock out.
I think it's a trick to make it easier for the **AA to, for example, subpoena ISPs for people's real names and addresses. Any California lawyers here know if this legislation will indeed make bringing cases for copyright infrigement easier for the **AA?
IANAL.
The BBC, particularly such gems as Dateline London on BBC News 24 (foreign correspondents for foreign news organisations based in the UK give the foreigners view of UK events - fascinating), generally give the facts relevant to both sides. I also regularly read The Guardian and The Independent, both left-of-centre, but which also both regularly dissect the rest of the media. I force myself to read other papers from time to time and catch ABC World News Tonight (what a fucking joke that name is) on the BBC for a broader view of events, which I mentally correlate with the reports in my preferred media to set the parameters of my internal bias filters for myself.
I've noted most of the replies are US-centric. Is the mainstream media over there really so bad that you have to turn to some amateur venting their spleen on a blog to get the truth?
Are people really incapable of absorbing information from a range of sources and deciding for themselves where the bias lies and what the truth is? If they are then the education system and democracy itself are severely fucked up.
As you're in your know-it-all phase, show me a material which exhibits zero resistance. Not one which breaks Ohm's law or one with almost zero resistance mind. I want zero resistance.
NQC (Not Quite C) is compiled to Lego bytecodes. BrickOS programs are compiled to H8 with gcc. There are also Forth and Java environments.
Given the range of options available (for *nixen, Windows, Mac...) I'd have to say in this case "mainstream" must mean "Microsoft".
These people even extend security to their website - ensuring the black text disappears into the surounding brown background. This is, I presume, to deter post-apocalyptic script-kiddies wishing to deface the site.
Perhaps "A reinterprtation of the Lorentz transformations" would be a suitable title, but I really don't see why you think he should call it "minor". That judgment should be left to the scientific community.
I think neither pride nor modesty have a place in scientific papers. They should simply be a statment of your research. The title "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" was an accurate, unemotional description of the paper. It was a paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, after all.
Perhaps you meant "boast" as a transitive verb merely describing a feature, as in "this switch boasts 5 10/100 ethernet ports", but I doubt that as you wrote "exessivley boastful". Boasting implies excessive pride, self-admination and glorification. I simply don't see that in the title.
p.s. I apologise for the, ah, slightly rude tone of my previous reply. I stand by the points I made though. I blame the wine...
Exceedinly boastful? The title is an accurate description of the content - it was a new model for the electrodynamics of moving bodies. There is no indication of merit or pride in the title, it's you who ascribes those attributes. You then attempt to denigrate Einstein for describing what he has done, apparently purely on the basis that his ideas were novel and better than those which went before.
Perhaps if you ever achieve something noteworthy you'll realise that stating what you have done in an appropriate forum is not boasting. Saying something profound is not boasting. If you think it is the problem lies with your self-esteem.
You may have a tiny penis, but that doesn't mean those of us with a monster dick should hide the fact.
If every game (this is a gaming machine) was multi-threaded then yes. But they aren't. So no.
What's that saying about people in glass houses?
They list screen resolution. This is evil. The implicit assumption is that people run their browser full-screen.
They have got keyboards. At least, the $999 one mentioned in the FA does. You can use it like a regular laptop when you need a keyboard.
Enough? You have 5197 to spare!
Huge SCSI RAID arrays with monstrous caches.
Are you sure? Gigabit ethernet is already faster than most hard drives sold today. You need a Raptor or a RAID array to beat it. And that's over copper.
OK, not with 15 people, but I was playing networked console games eight years ago. Lugging my TV across the hall and shifting furniture around. A couple of Playstations linked together and two TVs and you have an awesome 1 on 1 racing experience, even way back in '97. Of course you can also have 4-player Tekken or whatever with just one console if you prefer.
Yeah! Great idea! Why don't Amazon open-source their software too? Oh, wait it's because it's their fucking business. Hadn't you noticed that increasingly businesses use custom software and the sucessful ones have the best custom software? Without their software (and patents) Amazon are just another box shifter. Without this software Emachineshop is just another machine shop. Their entire fucking business model is based on rapid prototyping with their custom software. Why should they give it away?
Damn, now I've blown my mod points for this thread. All that reading of crap at -1 gone to waste. Perhaps I should have just modded you down as the troll you are.
I get that it will take the signals longer to propagate, but if you still get your signal within one clock cycle then surely it just doesn't matter from a performance point of view. You could see it with an oscilloscope, but not a benchmark. You seemed to be suggesting that more sticks automatically led to slower PC performance, rather than a reduced overhead for overclocking. Perhaps you were talking about a different "slower". But then...
I think we must be misunderstanding each other, because we agree on the above, which is for the 90% of computer users who run at stock timings (which will likely be fine no matter how many sticks you use) the important point.
Surely it's potentially slower, not necessarily slower. More specifically, you won't be able to push the timings as far with several sticks as you could with just one. If it works with several sticks at at a particular set of timings then surely it will be equally as fast as with one stick with those same timings. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems logical to me.