1 GB/month may SOUND like a lot, but it really isn't. Your 1 GB/month alocation would be eaten up if you have some task in the background soaking up 3.2 kb/second in bandwidth. That's how rediculously small that amount
1GB/month wasn't a lot even back in 2000, but at least in 2000 webpages were not nearly so bulky and were geared for 640*480 screens. I avoided ISPs with those sort of caps because I crunched the numbers and noticed I could easily exceed it in hours.
The main issue was OSS, where a given linux distro was at the very least 1/2 that limit, doubt it for anything mainstream. Also having a win2k the various updates were a major percent of that as well. Waiting a month between downloads was well, unacceptable. I didn't consider my self to be a bandwidth hog, but normal use, normal accepted use could easily exceed that.
No offense to wherever you are, but I haven't seen such crazy restrictions since....well those are the worst I've ever heard of. And I've been around since the BBS days.
In the early days of DSL in my region, there were some ISPs that offered those restrictions. They were reported to be good ISPs, just a tad costly if you exceeded their limit. It didn't seem "so" bad at the time 1GB at 640k/256, well except you could bust your limit after 1/2 hour.
For the life of me I can't remember the name of the ISPs in question, mainly because I didn't use them. Part of the reason to get DSL was to download things CD sized like linux.
That big piece from the Star Wars Lego set is not a house. Despite what you stuff inside of it. Form follows function. This would be a great tool for FEMA. But it's not a house. How about we stop building houses on the lowest parts of alluvial flood plains? There's a bright idea.
You have a point IF you negate the profit from the shipping and agricultural industry. I won't disagree people build in stupid places. I'm sure you can look at your own down and see new construction in areas that we didn't build in before, areas like drainage basins. There, when it floods, well, their own damn fault for building there. But coastal, river, and flood plane communities, well, loosing a house from time to time is pretty trivial when considering the benefits we get from them.
They were thinking that a lot of businesses had bought the machines, and weren't using the game ports for gaming, so they would welcome devices that put those ports to use. If you've ever seen pics of a C-64SX, the 23 pound 'portable' computer that was shown in the ads being carried by a guy in a gray suit getting off a learjet, you'll understand just what they thought was the market.
Except for one thing. If a businessman bought a PC, what were the odds it had a gameport to spare before the Pentium era? My memory is a little bit fuzzy about that time period regarding the game port since, well, mine came on a soundcard, which is exactly the sort of thing that would be omitted from a business machine until, well, about 1996 or so I'd guess.
I'm not sure when gameports became stock on PCs. I found it to be rather useless actually since any arcade game I could use the keyboard or a mouse. This is likely why I never noticed if a given motherboard had a gameport header when it became the norm to most the IO to the motherboard. I kind of noticed DA-15 cutouts on some cases, but this was not the norm.
That's one example, but there are many. The OP wants to build something that can read everything, and even if he manages to build something decent, he is going to run out of slots.
Also, some stuff is not going to work in any computer you can build today, period - even if you can at least plug all the hardware. The software depends on very specific hardware, timing (such as a 8086 at 4.77 Mhz), etc.
Tape drive 1) Controller 2) Drive 3) Software
In the QIC class of drives, I'm not aware of ANY that didn't use
1) QIC02/QIC036 ISA controlers 2) Scsi controlers 3) Floppy controler 4) IDE controler 5) Other (electronics parallel, game port)
I'm sure that anything in the (5) class also had something in the anything above class. I'm sure with a stack of DC-600A sized drives you could read most anything at least in terms of raw data. It's converting that raw data into something something usable that would be a real pain since this tended to be undocumented. DC-2000 sized, same issue, a stack of those too, raw read, decipher it in software.
While I agree there is a ton of stuff designed to work for a specific machine timing, I'm not aware of tape drives that had software with that issue. But I got out of the ISA controller scene in the Pentium III range, and some to think about it, by this point I just switched to a SCSI controller and used tar. What may be an issue with SCSI are drives that didn't pay well with specific chipsets. I've not seen this issue with tape, but I have seen this issue with scanners. There are a ton of scanners that hit goodwill about 5 years ago that were pretty much keyed to some Trxxxxx chipset.
But I agree that to read everything, well, that would NOT be practical. Now there probably should be a project dedicated to the universal reading of these damn tapes.
It was 150megs, not 120 as I remembered. You have a point by today's standards it was pretty small, but by early to mid 1990 standards that's equal to 104 floppy disks. The tapes were about $10 each, or $1.00 if you were lucky. 6.6c/meg wasn't really a bad deal. There is linux support for many of these drives, good solid support but that doesn't help you out as they were often shipped with those funky arse ISA controllers and dos software. Before 2000 the respective companies maintained BBSes with free public downloads. Handy! But they used the y2k scare to ditch BBS support. I'm sure you "might" be able to access the drive in linux, but I highly doubt respective companies were consistent with their software.
Wangtek is a company, they made tape drives. IIRC their 5150ES was the one I was thinking about, 150meg not 120. I'm sure at some point I upgraded to 350meg or 525meg but still used the supply of 60/150meg tapes. They may have also made scsi controllers for the tape drives.
As you might imagine, since it was primary storage, I wanted the fastest one available. Wangteks were pretty quick and were often offered on PCs with a qic02/qic36 isa controller and some minimal software.
game port (there is actually backup media that connects to the game port, what where they thinking)
I can't say I've seen the gameport used that way, but I can somewhat imagine why.
On the PC, there was IRQ hell. You have the serial ports at 3 and 4, IIRC lpt1: was 7, and IRQ 5 was that wonderful general purpose one that anything you wanted to add was set to. The game port, which doubled as a Midi port, was something that could be had cheaply, that didn't really add to the IRQ hell as it was the standard on sound cards.
But what were they thinking? They were likely thinking it was cheap.
I don't think openoffice will be very useful to read any document a 5.25" floppy, a QIC-20 tape, a IOMega drive, etc...
Anyway I don't think this guy is going to be very successful building a computer that can read everything. Some tapes need a controller that must be plugged into an ISA slot, for example.
Not exactly true. What you are likely thinking of are qic-02 or qic-36 tape drives where you have an isa controller. However, scsi->qic-xx controllers exist. I remember buying some PC solutions with their proprietary software and isa card just for the drive, specifically a Wangtek 5xxx series. Wangtek I know offered a drive that could write 120+megs to a DC600a tape. Very handy. However in my quest for speed and efficiency I discovered issues reading things written on Archive 5945C drives, or was it Kennedy 6500? It's hard for me to remember such details at this point but I do remember the joy of
1) Compatibility between drives 2) Compatibility between controllers 3) Compatibility between software
Come to think about it, it was about the windows 95 era that I thought it was a wise idea to ditch the whole QIC concept and go with Exabyte 8mm, or better yet CD-R via the good old HP 8200 series.
But to be fair, I'm sure I have some tape lying about off a qic-02 drive using some funky arse proprietary software.
God I hated that era. But I imagine you could get a few drives for each given size and get software that would read the various formats. I'm sure compression would be tricker but I'm sure it would be possible. I see this as being useful to those few bits of tape that haven't been moved yet.
I don't object to an XXX domain. Parents can block it, and people who want it can find it.
I'm for mandatory tags on adult webpages. Again parents can block it, people who want it can find it.
I don't mind so much black lists. At least real people maintaining them can correct mistakes. And a black list is good advertising for those who want that sort of thing.
But mandatory government blocking program, that's just asking for trouble. At least with opt-in problems you can get away with "just don't use it".
Seriously. One of the things I hate about watching TV is the fact that you have to depend on a station to carry a show, and play it, all of it. It's fine when it hits the rerun zone, but there is no real assurance they will play it totally and in the intended order. So, much of my 20th century TV watching was watching the repeats waiting for what I didn't see to come around.
The first stuff I started to see was on AOL's in2tv. They screwed up Rocky and Bullwinkle, one of "those" series where order and completeness matters, not so much that they don't carry a season but they broke up their "show" into their various little shows. Now we have Veoh and Hulu, and the quality of both is pretty good.
So it makes me wonder, now that these things exist, sites that carry series that have little to no commercial value, what point is there to 100+ channels? Seriously it's reached the point that I should actually ditch the cable since all of my TV needs save the local news are covered online. Even cartoon network.
In a small, aerodynamic car, speed doesn't matter that much. (In a larger vehicle and especially trucks, with their poor aerodynamics, speeds above 60 do start to affect mileage more strongly.)
This is likely why in the 70s there was research done into this since fuel prices jumped. IIRC the "ideal" speed for trucks at the time was about 45mph. This was all well and good. Would they save money by slowing down? Certainly not.
Going cross country 3000 miles, at 45mph that's 2.77 days. at 55 that's 2.27 days. How much does it cost to employ someone for.5 days? How much gas did you save? How much more do you stand to make in freight if your people are puttering about making more money rather than sitting in their truck?
[quote]8gb MicroSD: $27 The problem with my phone is that it needs a USB to 2.5mm adapter, then a 2.5mm-3.5mm adapter. (They might make a USB to 3.5mm adapter, but it is probably overpriced. The USB to 2.5mm adapter came in the box). I also have the wrong kind of 2.5mm-3.5mm adapter, so I have to put it in a certain amount (but not all the way), otherwise my phone crashes and I have to reboot it or I get no sound in either the left or right headphone.[/quote]
Ok, my info is out of date. The new egg price with shipping is $33.98 Slightly more consistent price is is $40-$50. From Sandisk.com $50(SDHC) or $70(M2) M2 from new egg $55.98 shipped.
$67 for a 8gig model shipped from tigerdirect, $150 realistic price from sandisk.com, $80 also realistic.
I'm willing to concede that microSD memory seems to cost less than the mp3 player. Even slightly more spendy M2 is cheaper.
Basic player on sale for $40. 8 gig player $67 8 gig stick $34 or $56
Cost savings $33 or $11 (M2)
You are correct, the player now costs more.
Ok, how much will an mp3 phone run me? Oh, free under ideal circumstances? Nokida 6263? And it comes with a 512meg card?
The winner, it's you, well, save the 2.5mm tri channel to 3.5mm stereo adapter, which I think is your issue. Phones have microphones, which adds an extra channel.
If you have a cell phone that offers good quality audio, why bother with an extra gadget?
Price?
Seriously those cell phones often take some from of microSD or XD, or some form of costs more than your average memory card. Stand alone devices that offer no memory upgrades often cost far less.
There are a ton of stand alone devices that are just dirt cheap, so cheap it's worth it for many people buy two devices.
But I can't deny that a cell phone with the device onboard is also handy, provided it has enough memory, can take external memory, and that feature doesn't suck up the batteries too quickly.
How could be this done? How could he connect to his laptop without knowing the IP address?
Odds are pretty good we're talking about a dynamic dns client. I know I install one on laptops for the purpose of remote login.
Even if not a dynamic DNS client, then the gent might have his e-mail being checked on his own domain. If not his own, then he "could" get this information from his mail provider. There is so much software being run the demands updates it's impossible to tell from the story how the person was able to narrow down the IP address.
But regardless once you narrow down which ISP the thief was using, one could easily scan the netblock for all addressing running a given service. Even for something like port 23, often you can narrow it down to a few machines.
Advanced timing, the easiest way to take advantage of higher octane fuel is beneficial mostly only on high rpm.
You understand that modern cars offer variable ignition timing? You have anti-knock sensors, 02 sensors, the sorts of things that help you out when you put fuel into your car. Handy things.
Still, there is going to be a given fuel that works best with your car, so it's best to consider your options and note the mileage.
That's great but standard in the UK, Japan and half of Europe is RON 95.
We have a choice, 87, 89, or 91/92 at your typical station, with some high altitude areas offering 82 or 85 RON+MON/2. It's good to note when traveling. I think I killed a Buick by using some "mountain" fuel, and in my old Corolla my MPG dropped to 20mpg after buying some high altitude fuel.
Here is an approximate conversion chart, according to it, your 95 fuel i likely to be 91 RON+MON/2. I think Texaco or Chevron offer 92 RON+MON/2.
Fuel standards in Europe are higher than for the USA though (higher RON fuel).
You understand in the states our petrol octane number is measured based on RON+MON/2, as in an average of two standards.
87 octane US is like 91 or 92 RON.
Now you could be an insider telling us that Euro fuel is actually more refined, and American petrol uses a ton of additives to compensate for a less refined product. I have no clue if this is true or not, but if you're just going by the numbers, our numbers are lower.
I remember running Qedit on a Compaq Contura Aero 486sx33 laptop, and it was spiffy. Quick to boot, did the job, and done. I even allocated a ramdisk for this purpose so I could get max battery life. I also had WP 6.0 while limited to 16 colors it also did the trick with minimal resources.
But I really don't miss the good old Dos days. Seriously! Tweeking with QEMM to maximize that 640k, having to tweak the config for that odd ball program that simply refused to run even if you shoved everything into himem, it just needed an extra kilobyte or so. Even 256 colors @ 640*480 was a dream for many programs as some vintage software was hard wired for a series of graphics chipsets. VESA support was a godsend, not that I had enough vid memory to support that on the POS laptop.
IBM tried releasing a dos webbrowser some years back, perhaps 1998 or so IIRC, and it was rather the same story, very limited support for 8 bit graphics, and you pretty much had to know your shit to get it working well, or invest in some hardware which defeats the point.
So while part of my understands going back to dos for speedy turn it on and type out some notes, the dos era was a fucking headache.
I had the unfortunate pleasure of owning a compaq contura aero 486sx33 laptop. I got it cheap as it was even for the time period a piece of shit, but it did the job. I often times avoided booting to windows to use qedit to take down notes and such.
If that's not fast enough for you, a TRS-80 Model 100 might do. They boot nearly instantly and have a built-in text editor. (The 32K max memory capacity might be a bit limiting, though.)
The good old TRS-80 portables. I remember there being an issue attaching an external modem. I know I had a 14.4k supra that for some reason the screen dimmed when I actually tried to use it, and I'm sure that the laptop couldn't deal with the the max speed the modem provided.
I'm not saying the TRS-80 isn't a good solution, far from it, just data interchange is a bit of a pain.
The last time I sort of dealt with one, I seem to remember that I needed to format the disks, but the software was on a disk that had since become corrupted. Not that one would want to use floppies to exchange data these days.
In some other comments in replies to me and my experience with getting 40mpg in a 76 corolla (9:1 compression ratio) using specifically Texaco premium gas during the gulf war, there seems to be some confusion about octane.
For the purposes of this post, the octane rating will be rendered in terms of RON+MON/2, which is the standard in the US, where 87 = about 91 RON. Europe I believe uses RON exclusively, where in the US and Canada, the rating is an average of two measurements.
The octane rating suggests a percent of octane to other materials, such as heptane. Something rated at 100 behaves like a solution of 100% octane in tests. However numbers above 100 exist, due to fuel additives a fuel measure as being more stable than pure octane. You can compress octane to a higher pressure than heptane, but octane is more difficult to burn. For this reason, some heptane is actually desirable.
IIRC standard 87 RON+MON/2 fuel is rated at about 35 MJ/liter premium fuel is rated at about 40MJ/liter These numbers are approximate and the actual energy content of a given mix will vary.
Modern cars have complex computer controlled ignition which will adjust the timing and air/fuel mix typically based on the CO sensor located in the catalytic converter. As such, you don't "need" to buy the highest grade fuel. However premium fuel might be desirable. But in my experience, the biggest difference in fuel economy isn't so much the premium gas, but finding the brand best suited to your car. An Audi for example might be more efficient using BP gas, a Honda might prefer Chevron.
Anyone who owns a car should take the time to note their fuel economy on the various brands available. It's the least you can do, and might save you bucks in the long term. You might enjoy benefits from the premium fuel, but this really depends on the car. Most of the time, premium fuel doesn't result in much difference. You'd most likely notice one if your engine's compression ratio is 9:1 or above.
And watch out when buying fuel at high altitudes. It's not uncommon to see lower than 87 octane fuels available. At lower pressure, 82 octane might work just fine until you hit a valley.
So to close
1) The octane rating is how a behaves in contrast to fuel with that percent octane to heptane. 2) A switch between brands will likely result in a greater difference than going premium. 3) Premium is worth trying just for laughs if your manual says it's okay, or if your engine uses a compression ratio of 9:1 or above.
Well then the engine was DESIGNED for high octane fuels, and using lesser octane rating was less than optimum (there was predetonation effecting a lower mileage). Premium fuel can withstand a higher compression without detonation (premature) it does not contain more potential joules of energy per volume.
The Octane rating while not an actual ratio of heptane to octane, as in something rated at 87 RON+MON/2 isn't necessarily actually 87% octane and 13% other such a heptane, odds are something rated higher than 87 is going to be more refined and as such contain a higher ratio of octane. While slower burning it without a doubt has more potential joules / liter than heptane.
Slashdot Mirror
1 GB/month may SOUND like a lot, but it really isn't.
Your 1 GB/month alocation would be eaten up if you have some task in the background soaking up 3.2 kb/second in bandwidth. That's how rediculously small that amount
1GB/month wasn't a lot even back in 2000, but at least in 2000 webpages were not nearly so bulky and were geared for 640*480 screens. I avoided ISPs with those sort of caps because I crunched the numbers and noticed I could easily exceed it in hours.
The main issue was OSS, where a given linux distro was at the very least 1/2 that limit, doubt it for anything mainstream. Also having a win2k the various updates were a major percent of that as well. Waiting a month between downloads was well, unacceptable. I didn't consider my self to be a bandwidth hog, but normal use, normal accepted use could easily exceed that.
No offense to wherever you are, but I haven't seen such crazy restrictions since....well those are the worst I've ever heard of. And I've been around since the BBS days.
In the early days of DSL in my region, there were some ISPs that offered those restrictions. They were reported to be good ISPs, just a tad costly if you exceeded their limit. It didn't seem "so" bad at the time 1GB at 640k/256, well except you could bust your limit after 1/2 hour.
For the life of me I can't remember the name of the ISPs in question, mainly because I didn't use them. Part of the reason to get DSL was to download things CD sized like linux.
That big piece from the Star Wars Lego set is not a house. Despite what you stuff inside of it. Form follows function. This would be a great tool for FEMA. But it's not a house. How about we stop building houses on the lowest parts of alluvial flood plains? There's a bright idea.
You have a point IF you negate the profit from the shipping and agricultural industry. I won't disagree people build in stupid places. I'm sure you can look at your own down and see new construction in areas that we didn't build in before, areas like drainage basins. There, when it floods, well, their own damn fault for building there. But coastal, river, and flood plane communities, well, loosing a house from time to time is pretty trivial when considering the benefits we get from them.
They were thinking that a lot of businesses had bought the machines, and weren't using the game ports for gaming, so they would welcome devices that put those ports to use. If you've ever seen pics of a C-64SX, the 23 pound 'portable' computer that was shown in the ads being carried by a guy in a gray suit getting off a learjet, you'll understand just what they thought was the market.
Except for one thing. If a businessman bought a PC, what were the odds it had a gameport to spare before the Pentium era? My memory is a little bit fuzzy about that time period regarding the game port since, well, mine came on a soundcard, which is exactly the sort of thing that would be omitted from a business machine until, well, about 1996 or so I'd guess.
I'm not sure when gameports became stock on PCs. I found it to be rather useless actually since any arcade game I could use the keyboard or a mouse. This is likely why I never noticed if a given motherboard had a gameport header when it became the norm to most the IO to the motherboard. I kind of noticed DA-15 cutouts on some cases, but this was not the norm.
That's one example, but there are many. The OP wants to build something that can read everything, and even if he manages to build something decent, he is going to run out of slots.
Also, some stuff is not going to work in any computer you can build today, period - even if you can at least plug all the hardware. The software depends on very specific hardware, timing (such as a 8086 at 4.77 Mhz), etc.
Tape drive
1) Controller
2) Drive
3) Software
In the QIC class of drives, I'm not aware of ANY that didn't use
1) QIC02/QIC036 ISA controlers
2) Scsi controlers
3) Floppy controler
4) IDE controler
5) Other (electronics parallel, game port)
I'm sure that anything in the (5) class also had something in the anything above class. I'm sure with a stack of DC-600A sized drives you could read most anything at least in terms of raw data. It's converting that raw data into something something usable that would be a real pain since this tended to be undocumented. DC-2000 sized, same issue, a stack of those too, raw read, decipher it in software.
While I agree there is a ton of stuff designed to work for a specific machine timing, I'm not aware of tape drives that had software with that issue. But I got out of the ISA controller scene in the Pentium III range, and some to think about it, by this point I just switched to a SCSI controller and used tar. What may be an issue with SCSI are drives that didn't pay well with specific chipsets. I've not seen this issue with tape, but I have seen this issue with scanners. There are a ton of scanners that hit goodwill about 5 years ago that were pretty much keyed to some Trxxxxx chipset.
But I agree that to read everything, well, that would NOT be practical. Now there probably should be a project dedicated to the universal reading of these damn tapes.
Though your post was informative, the sound you heard as you were typing it was the joke of the parent post doing mach 4 over your head.
Not at all. Everyone knows the issue with Wangtek and Wang. Wang made some decent servers, but as with all servers they needed some downtime.
"I need look at your Wang"
"Your Wang is down"
"Your Wang is up"
"Your Wang is making a funny noise"
"I need to remove your Wang"
No, we've heard it all before.
Hey! I could store 1/6 of an xvid movie on that.
It was 150megs, not 120 as I remembered. You have a point by today's standards it was pretty small, but by early to mid 1990 standards that's equal to 104 floppy disks. The tapes were about $10 each, or $1.00 if you were lucky. 6.6c/meg wasn't really a bad deal. There is linux support for many of these drives, good solid support but that doesn't help you out as they were often shipped with those funky arse ISA controllers and dos software. Before 2000 the respective companies maintained BBSes with free public downloads. Handy! But they used the y2k scare to ditch BBS support. I'm sure you "might" be able to access the drive in linux, but I highly doubt respective companies were consistent with their software.
Wang-tek? No, i really don't want to know what sort of interface cards they make!
https://www.deltaperipheral.com/sales/index.php?manufacturers_id=27
Wangtek is a company, they made tape drives. IIRC their 5150ES was the one I was thinking about, 150meg not 120. I'm sure at some point I upgraded to 350meg or 525meg but still used the supply of 60/150meg tapes. They may have also made scsi controllers for the tape drives.
As you might imagine, since it was primary storage, I wanted the fastest one available. Wangteks were pretty quick and were often offered on PCs with a qic02/qic36 isa controller and some minimal software.
game port (there is actually backup media that connects to the game port, what where they thinking)
I can't say I've seen the gameport used that way, but I can somewhat imagine why.
On the PC, there was IRQ hell. You have the serial ports at 3 and 4, IIRC lpt1: was 7, and IRQ 5 was that wonderful general purpose one that anything you wanted to add was set to. The game port, which doubled as a Midi port, was something that could be had cheaply, that didn't really add to the IRQ hell as it was the standard on sound cards.
But what were they thinking? They were likely thinking it was cheap.
Gawd how I hated that age.
I don't think openoffice will be very useful to read any document a 5.25" floppy, a QIC-20 tape, a IOMega drive, etc...
Anyway I don't think this guy is going to be very successful building a computer that can read everything. Some tapes need a controller that must be plugged into an ISA slot, for example.
Not exactly true. What you are likely thinking of are qic-02 or qic-36 tape drives where you have an isa controller. However, scsi->qic-xx controllers exist. I remember buying some PC solutions with their proprietary software and isa card just for the drive, specifically a Wangtek 5xxx series. Wangtek I know offered a drive that could write 120+megs to a DC600a tape. Very handy. However in my quest for speed and efficiency I discovered issues reading things written on Archive 5945C drives, or was it Kennedy 6500? It's hard for me to remember such details at this point but I do remember the joy of
1) Compatibility between drives
2) Compatibility between controllers
3) Compatibility between software
Come to think about it, it was about the windows 95 era that I thought it was a wise idea to ditch the whole QIC concept and go with Exabyte 8mm, or better yet CD-R via the good old HP 8200 series.
But to be fair, I'm sure I have some tape lying about off a qic-02 drive using some funky arse proprietary software.
http://www.qic.org/html/qicstan.html
God I hated that era. But I imagine you could get a few drives for each given size and get software that would read the various formats. I'm sure compression would be tricker but I'm sure it would be possible. I see this as being useful to those few bits of tape that haven't been moved yet.
I don't object to an XXX domain. Parents can block it, and people who want it can find it.
I'm for mandatory tags on adult webpages. Again parents can block it, people who want it can find it.
I don't mind so much black lists. At least real people maintaining them can correct mistakes. And a black list is good advertising for those who want that sort of thing.
But mandatory government blocking program, that's just asking for trouble. At least with opt-in problems you can get away with "just don't use it".
If I'm paying the driver by the mile, it doesn't cost anything. :p
If whether you're independent or if you're hiring out to other people, the more you can deliver in a given time period = more money.
A 1/2 a day after 3000 miles? That's an extra 790 miles you can charge for for the same period of time.
Seriously. One of the things I hate about watching TV is the fact that you have to depend on a station to carry a show, and play it, all of it. It's fine when it hits the rerun zone, but there is no real assurance they will play it totally and in the intended order. So, much of my 20th century TV watching was watching the repeats waiting for what I didn't see to come around.
The first stuff I started to see was on AOL's in2tv. They screwed up Rocky and Bullwinkle, one of "those" series where order and completeness matters, not so much that they don't carry a season but they broke up their "show" into their various little shows. Now we have Veoh and Hulu, and the quality of both is pretty good.
So it makes me wonder, now that these things exist, sites that carry series that have little to no commercial value, what point is there to 100+ channels? Seriously it's reached the point that I should actually ditch the cable since all of my TV needs save the local news are covered online. Even cartoon network.
In a small, aerodynamic car, speed doesn't matter that much. (In a larger vehicle and especially trucks, with their poor aerodynamics, speeds above 60 do start to affect mileage more strongly.)
This is likely why in the 70s there was research done into this since fuel prices jumped. IIRC the "ideal" speed for trucks at the time was about 45mph. This was all well and good. Would they save money by slowing down? Certainly not.
Going cross country 3000 miles, at 45mph that's 2.77 days. at 55 that's 2.27 days. How much does it cost to employ someone for .5 days? How much gas did you save? How much more do you stand to make in freight if your people are puttering about making more money rather than sitting in their truck?
[quote]8gb MicroSD: $27 The problem with my phone is that it needs a USB to 2.5mm adapter, then a 2.5mm-3.5mm adapter. (They might make a USB to 3.5mm adapter, but it is probably overpriced. The USB to 2.5mm adapter came in the box). I also have the wrong kind of 2.5mm-3.5mm adapter, so I have to put it in a certain amount (but not all the way), otherwise my phone crashes and I have to reboot it or I get no sound in either the left or right headphone.[/quote]
Ok, my info is out of date. The new egg price with shipping is $33.98 Slightly more consistent price is is $40-$50. From Sandisk.com $50(SDHC) or $70(M2) M2 from new egg $55.98 shipped.
Let's just say $34 for or $56 for M2.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3402958&Sku=S153-7012&SRCCODE=GOOGLEBASE&cm_mmc_o=TBBTkwCjCVyBpAgf%20mwzygtCjCVRqCjCVRq
$37 for a 2gig model shipped.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3481118&Sku=S153-7022&SRCCODE=GOOGLEBASE&cm_mmc_o=TBBTkwCjCVyBpAgf%20mwzygtCjCVRqCjCVRq
$67 for a 8gig model shipped from tigerdirect, $150 realistic price from sandisk.com, $80 also realistic.
I'm willing to concede that microSD memory seems to cost less than the mp3 player. Even slightly more spendy M2 is cheaper.
Basic player on sale for $40. 8 gig player $67
8 gig stick $34 or $56
Cost savings $33 or $11 (M2)
You are correct, the player now costs more.
Ok, how much will an mp3 phone run me? Oh, free under ideal circumstances? Nokida 6263? And it comes with a 512meg card?
The winner, it's you, well, save the 2.5mm tri channel to 3.5mm stereo adapter, which I think is your issue. Phones have microphones, which adds an extra channel.
If you have a cell phone that offers good quality audio, why bother with an extra gadget?
Price?
Seriously those cell phones often take some from of microSD or XD, or some form of costs more than your average memory card. Stand alone devices that offer no memory upgrades often cost far less.
There are a ton of stand alone devices that are just dirt cheap, so cheap it's worth it for many people buy two devices.
But I can't deny that a cell phone with the device onboard is also handy, provided it has enough memory, can take external memory, and that feature doesn't suck up the batteries too quickly.
How could be this done? How could he connect to his laptop without knowing the IP address?
Odds are pretty good we're talking about a dynamic dns client. I know I install one on laptops for the purpose of remote login.
Even if not a dynamic DNS client, then the gent might have his e-mail being checked on his own domain. If not his own, then he "could" get this information from his mail provider. There is so much software being run the demands updates it's impossible to tell from the story how the person was able to narrow down the IP address.
But regardless once you narrow down which ISP the thief was using, one could easily scan the netblock for all addressing running a given service. Even for something like port 23, often you can narrow it down to a few machines.
Advanced timing, the easiest way to take advantage of higher octane fuel is beneficial mostly only on high rpm.
You understand that modern cars offer variable ignition timing? You have anti-knock sensors, 02 sensors, the sorts of things that help you out when you put fuel into your car. Handy things.
Still, there is going to be a given fuel that works best with your car, so it's best to consider your options and note the mileage.
That's great but standard in the UK, Japan and half of Europe is RON 95.
We have a choice, 87, 89, or 91/92 at your typical station, with some high altitude areas offering 82 or 85 RON+MON/2. It's good to note when traveling. I think I killed a Buick by using some "mountain" fuel, and in my old Corolla my MPG dropped to 20mpg after buying some high altitude fuel.
Here is an approximate conversion chart, according to it, your 95 fuel i likely to be 91 RON+MON/2. I think Texaco or Chevron offer 92 RON+MON/2.
RON-MON-PON
90-83-86.6
92-85-88.5
95-87-91
96-88-92
98-90-94
100-91.5-95.8
105-95-100
110-99-104.5
Fuel standards in Europe are higher than for the USA though (higher RON fuel).
You understand in the states our petrol octane number is measured based on RON+MON/2, as in an average of two standards.
87 octane US is like 91 or 92 RON.
Now you could be an insider telling us that Euro fuel is actually more refined, and American petrol uses a ton of additives to compensate for a less refined product. I have no clue if this is true or not, but if you're just going by the numbers, our numbers are lower.
I remember running Qedit on a Compaq Contura Aero 486sx33 laptop, and it was spiffy. Quick to boot, did the job, and done. I even allocated a ramdisk for this purpose so I could get max battery life. I also had WP 6.0 while limited to 16 colors it also did the trick with minimal resources.
But I really don't miss the good old Dos days. Seriously! Tweeking with QEMM to maximize that 640k, having to tweak the config for that odd ball program that simply refused to run even if you shoved everything into himem, it just needed an extra kilobyte or so. Even 256 colors @ 640*480 was a dream for many programs as some vintage software was hard wired for a series of graphics chipsets. VESA support was a godsend, not that I had enough vid memory to support that on the POS laptop.
IBM tried releasing a dos webbrowser some years back, perhaps 1998 or so IIRC, and it was rather the same story, very limited support for 8 bit graphics, and you pretty much had to know your shit to get it working well, or invest in some hardware which defeats the point.
So while part of my understands going back to dos for speedy turn it on and type out some notes, the dos era was a fucking headache.
I can't think of anything that will boot faster, although EMACS will likely be the friendliest editor available.
Qedit
was my favorite from that time, not for windows as The SemWare Editor.
I had the unfortunate pleasure of owning a compaq contura aero 486sx33 laptop. I got it cheap as it was even for the time period a piece of shit, but it did the job. I often times avoided booting to windows to use qedit to take down notes and such.
If that's not fast enough for you, a TRS-80 Model 100 might do. They boot nearly instantly and have a built-in text editor. (The 32K max memory capacity might be a bit limiting, though.)
The good old TRS-80 portables. I remember there being an issue attaching an external modem. I know I had a 14.4k supra that for some reason the screen dimmed when I actually tried to use it, and I'm sure that the laptop couldn't deal with the the max speed the modem provided.
I'm not saying the TRS-80 isn't a good solution, far from it, just data interchange is a bit of a pain.
The last time I sort of dealt with one, I seem to remember that I needed to format the disks, but the software was on a disk that had since become corrupted. Not that one would want to use floppies to exchange data these days.
In some other comments in replies to me and my experience with getting 40mpg in a 76 corolla (9:1 compression ratio) using specifically Texaco premium gas during the gulf war, there seems to be some confusion about octane.
For the purposes of this post, the octane rating will be rendered in terms of RON+MON/2, which is the standard in the US, where 87 = about 91 RON. Europe I believe uses RON exclusively, where in the US and Canada, the rating is an average of two measurements.
The octane rating suggests a percent of octane to other materials, such as heptane. Something rated at 100 behaves like a solution of 100% octane in tests. However numbers above 100 exist, due to fuel additives a fuel measure as being more stable than pure octane. You can compress octane to a higher pressure than heptane, but octane is more difficult to burn. For this reason, some heptane is actually desirable.
IIRC standard 87 RON+MON/2 fuel is rated at about 35 MJ/liter
premium fuel is rated at about 40MJ/liter
These numbers are approximate and the actual energy content of a given mix will vary.
Modern cars have complex computer controlled ignition which will adjust the timing and air/fuel mix typically based on the CO sensor located in the catalytic converter. As such, you don't "need" to buy the highest grade fuel. However premium fuel might be desirable. But in my experience, the biggest difference in fuel economy isn't so much the premium gas, but finding the brand best suited to your car. An Audi for example might be more efficient using BP gas, a Honda might prefer Chevron.
Anyone who owns a car should take the time to note their fuel economy on the various brands available. It's the least you can do, and might save you bucks in the long term. You might enjoy benefits from the premium fuel, but this really depends on the car. Most of the time, premium fuel doesn't result in much difference. You'd most likely notice one if your engine's compression ratio is 9:1 or above.
And watch out when buying fuel at high altitudes. It's not uncommon to see lower than 87 octane fuels available. At lower pressure, 82 octane might work just fine until you hit a valley.
So to close
1) The octane rating is how a behaves in contrast to fuel with that percent octane to heptane.
2) A switch between brands will likely result in a greater difference than going premium.
3) Premium is worth trying just for laughs if your manual says it's okay, or if your engine uses a compression ratio of 9:1 or above.
Well then the engine was DESIGNED for high octane fuels, and using lesser octane rating was less than optimum (there was predetonation effecting a lower mileage). Premium fuel can withstand a higher compression without detonation (premature) it does not contain more potential joules of energy per volume.
The Octane rating while not an actual ratio of heptane to octane, as in something rated at 87 RON+MON/2 isn't necessarily actually 87% octane and 13% other such a heptane, odds are something rated higher than 87 is going to be more refined and as such contain a higher ratio of octane. While slower burning it without a doubt has more potential joules / liter than heptane.