It's said that you stop seeing the difference at around 30 fps, but so far I've only heard comparisons with movies and TV. Other "rules" might be in effect when you display the same graphics on a screen much sharper than a movie, where each frame is clearly transitioned to another without any blur inbetween, like on a movie (at least I assume the transitions between frames on a movie screen isn't as defined as on a monitor).
Movies automatically get perfect antialiasing and (more importantly) motion blur, while in games, even if you have antialiasing on, I haven't heard of any card doing motion blur. So motion on a computer at the same framerate will be much more jerky.
Isn't this just a problem with the newly released Opera7?
You mean, perhaps MSN had to write special versions of the page for the older Opera6? No. Opera6 handles the pages sent to MSIE6 just fine.
I'm curious, who's right? Did Opera 6 have a +30px bug, or did it render the ie6 style sheet correctly? From their screen shot it looks fine. (near the end of here)
(hey look, there's something hidden in their source too:
"<--<h2>Give it up! Don't you realize that Microsoft won the browser war?</h2>
<p>No. The Web was created to offer universal access to information. No single vendor should be allowed to treat it as private property. Netscape used to be the bully on the block, but Microsoft outperforms them in this role. If you would like the Web to remain a place where no single vendor dominates, please consider using Opera.--> ")
Solar Power can never be anything but a valuable complement to something else. All trials of storin the energy longer times have failed miserably so far.
What is coal? Stored solar energy. What is oil? Stored solar energy. Wind? Solar energy. Hydroelectric dam? Solar.
It compiles with Microsoft extensions enabled by default, if you tell it to be ANSI compliant, it gets for-loop scope right. (templates still give it trouble in some cases, but to be fair they've been difficult for all compiler writers to get right)
Why is a keyboard so much better than having a dedicated USB hub, or having USB ports on the monitor? For that matter, where do you go when you want to insert a CD? (I'd rather have a CF slot on the chassis than at the end of a USB cable.)
Don't all keyboards come with USB ports on them?
Most keyboards don't even have a USB connector on them.
PC keyboards have had the exact same serial connection since the AT, the connector changed shapes, but the signals are the same. You can take a 15 year old keyboard and a simple adapter (just a bunch of wires) and it'll work on a brand new computer. (or vice versa if you've got an anchient machine with no keyboard)
PC hardware has to worry about backwards compatibility much more than Apple because there are multiple suppliers. If one company starts using a certain type of interface and no one follows, they're screwed. We get much cheaper and more varied hardware, but the interfaces between devices lag in technology. One side effect is lengthened lifespan, because you can often use modern replacement parts.
Every Mac keyboard for... oh, god, since the first USB Mac keyboard, I think, has come with two USB ports on it.
This they inherited from previous designs which had whatever ports they used before USB. Most other systems have a dedicated mouse and keyboard port on the main chassis. (probably because it was much easier to design at the time, which also makes the hardware less expensive)
Am I the only one who likes seeing UNITS on things?
Itanium 2/1000 scores a little over 1400 somethings at just above 800 something elses. Is this better or worse than the Athlon XP/2250, which scores less than 800 whatever-they-ares at 900 who-knows-whats?
Sure its cool, and would be fun to mess with, but if its more then a box of parts in cost.. why??
What it is:
The Commodore One computer is a 2002 enhanced adaptation of the Commodore 64 -the most sold of any computer model (Guiness book of World Records) While retaining almost all of the original's capabilities the Commodore One adds modern features, interfacing and capabilities and fills a sorely needed gap in the hobbyist computer market.
I can build a C64 for almost nothing, even if i didnt have 3 in the garage somewhere...
This is not an exact replica of the C64 (btw, how would you duplicate the custom logic chips without an original?) This has a 20MHz processor, will take 32MB of ram, has a built-in CompactFlash slot, will handle video up to 1280x1024, and actually has a PCI bus.
That means if you want to do math on numbers larger than that, you can't do it in a single instruction on a 32 bit processor.
Of course, with MMX and such you can already do a limited amount of math with 64-bit integers in single instructions.
Finally, if you are doing, say, nuclear physics and want to simulate something in high precision, you'll want 64 bits in your floating point numbers to get a more accurate representation of what's going on.
x87 math coprocessors have always had a 64-bit floating point format.
Can you set the shortcut to run as a different user, or set it to use runas? It is possible to run one program as administrator when you're logged in as someone else.
So if we're going to compare sample-by-sample from the ogg, I think almost every sample will be off by a little, because of the nature of the compression. So probably the "missing parts"-flac would be close to the size as a compressed flac of the original.
Image you have some 16-bit samples: 20456, -1872, 3347, 10000
Now suppose you use a lossy compression algorithm, and the output of the decoder is: 20453, -1877, 3350, 9998
The difference between the two is: 3, 5, -3, 2
These samples can be encoded in 4 bits. (before lossless compression!) You've got a source now that's 1/4 the size.
I don't know if the final vorbis + lossless stage (flac would probably not be appropriate) would be smaller than flac, but it's an interesting idea.
Re:Oldest working code...
on
Immortal Code
·
· Score: 1
DNA is very much a source code
DNA is object code. It can pretty much only be read (as in understood) by the machine where it executes. Converting it to a list of proteins that it will produce (microcode dispatch, btw) is roughly analogous to converting machine code to assembly. You still don't really know what it *does*.
It's not source until you can see a call to CreateRedBloodCell().
For those coming late to the story, Joel Sponsky demonstrated in his well known column [joelonsoftware.com] recently that Bayesian filtering of spam is an intractible problem.
Where? There's no mention of Bayesian anything on that page. The closest thing I can see is "Bad Spam Filters," which is about a different kind of filter.
If jammers were used commonly, the only place you'd be able to make calls without the fear of jamming would be from within your own home. Which kinda defeats their whole purpose, doesn't it?
Oh, wah. There are many good arguments against cell phone jamming, and this is not one of them.
Why should I care if you can't use your annoying technology wherever you want? I would not cry if cell phones because all but useless.
You think that all that stuff you mentioned doesn't have overhead? C++ just hides all the overhead,
C++ does not hide overhead. C++ allows the programmer to hide overhead. (If you're using premade libraries, that may be someone else.)
If you take the raw language, there is a rough correlation between the time complexity of a task and the complexity of the code to do it.
You can pile tons of code into constructors and destructors and have (sort of) invisible bottlenecks, but in the base language there are very few things like this, and they're well known and easy to avoid.
Slashdot Mirror
It's said that you stop seeing the difference at around 30 fps, but so far I've only heard comparisons with movies and TV. Other "rules" might be in effect when you display the same graphics on a screen much sharper than a movie, where each frame is clearly transitioned to another without any blur inbetween, like on a movie (at least I assume the transitions between frames on a movie screen isn't as defined as on a monitor).
Movies automatically get perfect antialiasing and (more importantly) motion blur, while in games, even if you have antialiasing on, I haven't heard of any card doing motion blur. So motion on a computer at the same framerate will be much more jerky.
(maybe this is what you were saying anyway...)
The stupid children fall into the pit of spikes.
I always thought that was why they plant oleander around all the schools here.
Note that the free compiler included with the SDK does not do all the optimizations that make the vc7 compiler worth getting.
ommand line warning D4029 : optimization is not available in the standard edition compiler
I'm curious, who's right? Did Opera 6 have a +30px bug, or did it render the ie6 style sheet correctly? From their screen shot it looks fine. (near the end of here)
(hey look, there's something hidden in their source too:
"<--<h2>Give it up! Don't you realize that Microsoft won the browser war?</h2>
<p>No. The Web was created to offer universal access to information. No single vendor should be allowed to treat it as private property. Netscape used to be the bully on the block, but Microsoft outperforms them in this role. If you would like the Web to remain a place where no single vendor dominates, please consider using Opera.--> ")
Solar Power can never be anything but a valuable complement to something else. All trials of storin the energy longer times have failed miserably so far.
What is coal? Stored solar energy.
What is oil? Stored solar energy.
Wind? Solar energy.
Hydroelectric dam? Solar.
What does that leave us with, nuclear and tidal?
It compiles with Microsoft extensions enabled by default, if you tell it to be ANSI compliant, it gets for-loop scope right. (templates still give it trouble in some cases, but to be fair they've been difficult for all compiler writers to get right)
The USB port on the keyboard is never more than an inch or two away from your hands.
;)
Except when you move your hand to pick up the USB device you want to plug in.
I don't want USB ports on the front of my monitor because they're ugly.
Ok, how about the side of the monitor?
Well, I don't think I really have a point here, so...
USB ports... belong on the keyboard.
Why is a keyboard so much better than having a dedicated USB hub, or having USB ports on the monitor? For that matter, where do you go when you want to insert a CD? (I'd rather have a CF slot on the chassis than at the end of a USB cable.)
Don't all keyboards come with USB ports on them?
Most keyboards don't even have a USB connector on them.
PC keyboards have had the exact same serial connection since the AT, the connector changed shapes, but the signals are the same. You can take a 15 year old keyboard and a simple adapter (just a bunch of wires) and it'll work on a brand new computer. (or vice versa if you've got an anchient machine with no keyboard)
PC hardware has to worry about backwards compatibility much more than Apple because there are multiple suppliers. If one company starts using a certain type of interface and no one follows, they're screwed. We get much cheaper and more varied hardware, but the interfaces between devices lag in technology. One side effect is lengthened lifespan, because you can often use modern replacement parts.
Every Mac keyboard for... oh, god, since the first USB Mac keyboard, I think, has come with two USB ports on it.
This they inherited from previous designs which had whatever ports they used before USB. Most other systems have a dedicated mouse and keyboard port on the main chassis. (probably because it was much easier to design at the time, which also makes the hardware less expensive)
Please read other replies. The graph has been corrected. Originally, the "SPECfp_base2000" and "SPECint_base2000" labels were missing.
What's with this graph? http://www.realworldtech.com/includes/images/artic les/battle64-2003-fig1.gif
Am I the only one who likes seeing UNITS on things?
Itanium 2/1000 scores a little over 1400 somethings at just above 800 something elses. Is this better or worse than the Athlon XP/2250, which scores less than 800 whatever-they-ares at 900 who-knows-whats?
That's their answer to your question.
I can build a C64 for almost nothing, even if i didnt have 3 in the garage somewhere...
This is not an exact replica of the C64 (btw, how would you duplicate the custom logic chips without an original?) This has a 20MHz processor, will take 32MB of ram, has a built-in CompactFlash slot, will handle video up to 1280x1024, and actually has a PCI bus.
That means if you want to do math on numbers larger than that, you can't do it in a single instruction on a 32 bit processor.
Of course, with MMX and such you can already do a limited amount of math with 64-bit integers in single instructions.
Finally, if you are doing, say, nuclear physics and want to simulate something in high precision, you'll want 64 bits in your floating point numbers to get a more accurate representation of what's going on.
x87 math coprocessors have always had a 64-bit floating point format.
Can you set the shortcut to run as a different user, or set it to use runas? It is possible to run one program as administrator when you're logged in as someone else.
So if we're going to compare sample-by-sample from the ogg, I think almost every sample will be off by a little, because of the nature of the compression. So probably the "missing parts"-flac would be close to the size as a compressed flac of the original.
Image you have some 16-bit samples:
20456, -1872, 3347, 10000
Now suppose you use a lossy compression algorithm, and the output of the decoder is:
20453, -1877, 3350, 9998
The difference between the two is:
3, 5, -3, 2
These samples can be encoded in 4 bits. (before lossless compression!) You've got a source now that's 1/4 the size.
I don't know if the final vorbis + lossless stage (flac would probably not be appropriate) would be smaller than flac, but it's an interesting idea.
DNA is very much a source code
DNA is object code. It can pretty much only be read (as in understood) by the machine where it executes. Converting it to a list of proteins that it will produce (microcode dispatch, btw) is roughly analogous to converting machine code to assembly. You still don't really know what it *does*.
It's not source until you can see a call to CreateRedBloodCell().
For those coming late to the story, Joel Sponsky demonstrated in his well known column [joelonsoftware.com] recently that Bayesian filtering of spam is an intractible problem.
Where? There's no mention of Bayesian anything on that page. The closest thing I can see is "Bad Spam Filters," which is about a different kind of filter.
"Let's all love Lain."
Just because there isn't a command line layer doesn't mean there's nothing underneath the GUI -- a CLI would be on top of that too, of course.
Well, there is the recovery console, which is a CLI you can run without starting the GUI. As a "disk operating system," it's pretty limited.
DOS-within-Windows is now just an alternate wacky skin for Windows Explorer.
Technically, no.
Explorer is three things:
1. the taskbar
2. the desktop & its icons
3. the file/web browser
Explorer and the command prompt may both provide interfaces to the same sort of thing, but they are completely independant.
If jammers were used commonly, the only place you'd be able to make calls without the fear of jamming would be from within your own home. Which kinda defeats their whole purpose, doesn't it?
Oh, wah. There are many good arguments against cell phone jamming, and this is not one of them.
Why should I care if you can't use your annoying technology wherever you want? I would not cry if cell phones because all but useless.
Nowadays that's about as useful as Duff's Device and doubly-linked lists with a single pointer. With the register renaming in modern processors, swaps are effortless.
They stomped all other competition (ISA)
Wasn't VLB the competitor to PCI?
It's actually pretty decent once you add UnxUtils. Just make sure it's windows batch and not dos batch.
It's not a rolling Hindenberg.
No, you'd have to coat it with thermite to get that effect...
GM has gone on the record saying that, because of the elimination of most of the moving parts, these cars could realistically last 20 years.
My last car lasted 20 years, 1981 Toyota Corolla. Probably a statistical anomoly, but still.
You think that all that stuff you mentioned doesn't have overhead? C++ just hides all the overhead,
C++ does not hide overhead. C++ allows the programmer to hide overhead. (If you're using premade libraries, that may be someone else.)
If you take the raw language, there is a rough correlation between the time complexity of a task and the complexity of the code to do it.
You can pile tons of code into constructors and destructors and have (sort of) invisible bottlenecks, but in the base language there are very few things like this, and they're well known and easy to avoid.