1. Someone's getting their MBits and GBits mixed up. Samsung has announced 32-gigabit (4GB) flash chips, not 32 megabit.
2. NAND has traditionally been shunned in many uses because it can usually only be accessed as a block device, and not a standard ROM device. Which makes it unsuitable for many embedded applications. Thus this chip is probably targetted at the thumb drive market.
3. This is exciting stuff! According to the article, PRAM is supposed to have processing speeds similar to RAM, and does not require erasure or sectoring. The only downside is that they don't give any hard figures on what "fast processing speed" means. Depending on what that actually means, we could start seeing machines that are able to instantly hibernate like EROS, but without the added step of writing to disk.
4. The 512 MBit (64MB) device may sound small, but I imagine that more than one chip will be chained together to create a larger storage device. Samsung will probably also work to produce larger chips once they have all the early production issues worked out.
5. The CIO article is already slow, so I'll add one tidbit they had. According to CIO, Samsung is considering PRAM to be a good fit for replaceing Flash memory in mobile phones. Considering the lower price, this could be a good fit. The only question is, does it use more or less power during read/write cycles?
And that pretty much confirms it. As with most trolls, you speak in absolutes.
It's possible that I was wrong, can you please state your own opinion, instead of quoting?
Oh yes, why don't I just nip off and type up a 300 page document that restates everything that was already in the link I linked to, just because a random troll on the Internet states that "review sites are wrong".
You want "abusive language"? I have not used any yet. I have stated fact to date. Now I will state fact with abusive language as you apparently so desire: You are either a troll or an idiot.
You did refer to a moronic review site, of no value to anyone.
And you know this because... ???
I have to admit that I didn't bother to read what they reviewed
And therefore it must be moronic and of no value. Right.
(In best McKay, "using power" tone) Losing Credibility... Losing Credibility...
since I've never bothered to read what other people think about a movie or episode ever.
Except that he made explicit predictions about the series that all held true, documented regular continutiy problems both with the other Star Trek series AND internally to the show, as well as pointed out the sources of their stolen "ideas". But you wouldn't know that, because you weren't paying the slightest bit of attention. You just want to yammer on about how it's all just an opinion, and you're REALLY smart for pointing out something that was never argued in the first place!
The amazing part is that we're now on your third post, and all you've figured out is that we're not talking about First Contact. The fact that 90% of the post was about disproving that B&B were "scapegoats" has gone entirely over your head.
Well. you did refer to a review to prove you point.
A review of First Contact? I think not! Pay more attention.
As you might remeber, the original post stated that he ranked FC as good.
I "remember" that the poster claimed B&B were being used as scapegoats. His reference to FC was just as offhanded as mine was. i.e. He tried to use it to "prove" that B&B were good writers, and I mentioned that my own opinion of it was fairly low.
Seriously, I can't believe you're now on your second response and STILL think that I posted a review of First Contact. Get with the program, will you?
Dude, the reason why Star Trek is on hold right now is due to Berman. Paramount is waiting for their contract with him to run out before continuing with the franchise.
Yeah, because Paramount kept renewing their contract for the run of DS9, Voyager, and finally Enterprise. They had ample opportunity to cut back their contracts, or at least negotiate shorter ones. But NOOOOOO. They kept giving these morons MORE money (as in, larger contracts!) for the crappy work they were doing.
Then Berman had the gall to give an interview where he whined about how hard it was being a producer, and that people wrote him letters about "stupid stuff" like the phasers being fired out of the photon torpedo banks or an episode contradicting previously established facts. Nevermind that Gene used to actually listen to those same fans, and planned things like the control panels in TNG to address common issues.
Personally, I think they're a scapegoat by the "hard-core" fans
Suuuurrre. Tell you what, go to this page and read up on his reviews of the Enterprise episodes. Then look me straight in the eye and tell me he wasn't right.
- No story arc planning? Check. - Inconsistent characters? Check. - No continuity? Check. - Obsession with potty humor? Check. - Using sex to try to improve ratings? Check.
Whether you like his opinion or not, every prediction he made based on previous episodes ended up holding true for future episodes.
Oh, and First Contact was not that great of a movie. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't particularly good either.
In my mind though, a good teacher is one who gets the pig to at least feign a little bit of intrest in humming along.
A teacher who can get the pig to at least feign interest is an exceptional teacher. The unfortunate fact of life, however, is that not every teacher is going to be an exceptional teacher. So expecting that there are sufficient numbers of exceptional high school teachers to overcome the mental blocks placed by the elementary teachings is ludicrous. It only serves to treat the symptom rather than the problem.
Treat the problem, and you'll find that the occasional "ok" teacher (or even bad teacher) has a low impact on the student.
Your point about normalizing children is so very true and I hate it with a passion. However, I really believe that hiring more GOOD teachers in order to reduce class size could go a long way in helping the problem.
My sister went through some college classes on teaching, as a prelude to working toward becoming a teacher. Unfortuantely, they tried to teach her to always normalize the children. So the reason why your elementary teachers are dropping in quality is that they're being taught by predecessors to keep up the bad work.:(
Not to be a nit-picker, earlier you said they are not doing well.
Actually, I said that the results of the high schools are not good, but that the problem is the elementary schools. I'll try to chose my words carefully here, because it's a complex issue that's ripe for misunderstanding.
My experience is that high schools are not the problem. The teachers in many high schools manage to do a decent job of teaching, except that the students do a poor job of learning. The reason why the students do so poorly is that they're following the pattern they learned in elementary: School is just work, and you are just like everyone else. This is drilled into the kids to such a degree that anyone who shows a strong interest in a field like science or arts is derided (and sometimes bullied) as being a "nerd" or a "pansy", and are treated as inferior. Especially by the "jocks" (for boys) and "popularity cliques" (for girls).
You have to understand, by the time someone reaches high school, they are already a young adult. While they lack life's experience, their demenor, interests, and personality have already been decided. High school level topics (and on into college) are topics that young adults must take even a modicum of interest in to learn about. Plenty of resources are available to complete one's education, both in class and out of class. At best, high school merely introduces you to a wide variety of topics.
In elementary, however, a child's mind is still a developing thing; ripe for influence. THAT is the time at which a person is grown and shaped. If the parents don't care, the school tells the child that everyone is the same, and the educational foundations are presented through methods that are difficult for children to grasp (e.g. reading by recognition, "new math", lack of focus on language skills, etc.) then what kind of development is the child getting?
Perhaps the most telling thing to me is the children who go to private or home school for elementary, then go to a public high school. These young adults take far more interest in the topics, and usually graduate at the top of their class. They do extremely well in life, despite being exposed to public school.
Having been in the education business for awhile I take exception to your comment that school systems are already being pumped full of cash.
Having taken an interest in school systems and their results, I take exception to the fact that incredible amounts of money is being spent, but that this money is not finding its way into the education. As you say, you may end up with an $800.00 budget for science experiments. Yet a school might invest hundreds of thousand to millions into a new football field or sports equipment.
I can certainly tell you that the massive influx of money is NOT going towards my salary. Everyone I know with a college degree earns generally far more than I do. This brings me to my main point If we want to better the educational system in America we need to raise teachers' salary (among other things).
I don't think it's that simple. I think if we want our kids to have good schools educators, we need that money flowing into their educations. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen as long as extra-curicular activities are seen as more important than the curicular activities.
However, I feel compelled to point out that a large number of high schools teachers manage to do quite well despite the shortfall of funds. Like yourself, the teachers look to pass on as much science and technology as they can. The problem is, if the kids are missing a good elementary education, they tend to take less interest in a higher education.
Which brings us back around to...
I can tell you, from my own observations that the single greatest factor that influences whether a student gets a good education or not is the parents.
Which comes back to what I was saying. You've got a two-fold problem with elementary education:
1. The parents don't care enough about their kids education, and treat it as daycare.
2. The teachers are trained to normalize the children rather than recognize individual achievement and ability, lest the school be accused by the parents of making Johnny feel unimportant or underachieving. Never mind that part of growing up is to learn that you can't be the best at everything, and that each person has their own talents and abilities.
Simply increasing funding will not solve these problems. These are socio-economic issues that go beyond simple greenbacks. The sooner the public is made aware that the problem is elementary (my dear Watson... sorry.:P), the sooner we can raise awareness of the needed participation. I would hope that this would encourage parents to make changes to ensure their child's education, but I'm afraid that's unlikely. There's a huge backlash against the idea of acting like a traditional parent. The very idea of accepting a lower income so that one parent will always be available to supervise the children's upbringing is considered quaint, outmoded, and even sexist. (Since it's usually the mother who takes on the nuturing role.)
So I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to NOT disagree with you, but just point out that we're in full agreement, but that the situation is complex and fraught with a large number of competing issues.;)
The children of typically wealthy parents that care enough about their child's education to go to the effort of putting them in a private school perform better in school.
I can say from personal experience that you're allowing your preconceptions to get in the way. Private schools are far from a playground for the rich. For example, the private school I send my children to actually has quite a number of low income families sending their children there. As a whole, the school has produced academically superior children.
There's also the case of home schoolers, who continue to outperform their public school peers. A large percentage of home schoolers are in the lower to middle classes. i.e. Nothing special.
So there's absolutely no evidence that the success of non-public schooling has anything to do with the students being superior from the get-go. If there is any area of superiority, it's in the choices the parents have made in ensuring that their child gets the best education possible.
Because that isn't the answer. The current school systems are already being pumped cash, but still show horrible results. Especially when compared to private schools. What Microsoft is doing is not a bad idea. I just cringe at the idea of applying "Microsoft Management Procedures" as a panacea to all the school's problems. Most likely, all that technology will just mean that the students do just as badly, but in a high tech environment!:-/
Of course, the problem really stems from poor elementry education. Students are rarely taught a solid foundation that they can grasp, and concepts like personal responsibility, individual talent, and academic achievement are wiped away as unimportant. Just so long as nobody feels they're special and nobody feels that they're not normal, then who cares if the academic bar is going lower and lower?
Unfortunately, I find it doubtful that things will change as long as Political Correctness rules our schools and parents see elementary as nothing more than free day care.
AFAIK, the only models of the 6502 are 6502, 6507 (fewer pins), 65C02 (fixes bugs), and 65816 (16 bit). These cores have been implemented by various processors, and are still often used in modern microcontrollers. You're probably thinking of either the 65C816, or a specific manufacturer's model number.
To be serious for a moment, the 6502 series (which included the 6507 and 65C02) was an excellent processor architecture that was incredibly easy to learn on. Its small instruction set, focus on 8 bit instructions, and logical segmenting made it popular both in real usage (Commodore 64, Atari 2600, Nintendo Entertainment System, Atari 8-bit computers, Apple II, BBC Micro, etc.) AND in teaching.
Just about anyone can learn to program it by reading the documentation. It's so simple, it can even replace BASIC as a first language. (Although, you might have a bit of diffculty doing "Hello World" unless you understand the hardware you're programming for.)
From what I've been told, the actual equipment used to shoot/store a HD scene is different than your run-of-the-mill equipment.
If they're shooting with a Betacam, then they need to upgrade to an HDCam. (Available since 1997.) However, anything done on 35mm (like Firefly) can be digitally resampled to create a high-def print. You'll be happy to know that UHD has done exactly that.:)
In any case, some HD broadcasts I've seen were simply the station trying to upconvert a 16:9 480i shows to "Hi Def." In other words, a blurry pixelated mess that is obvious to distinguish between a true HD show.
That's just laziness. The station is basically taking what it has on hand (16:9 NTSC film) rather than getting an HD copy made from the masters. Of course, they need the studio to actually produce such a copy, so I imagine that HD broadcasts are often unavailable.:(
if it was shot with the right equipment for HD then yes it will be awesome. But if it was just shot using ordinary equipment, then I'm hesitant to watch it.
Since HD *is* ordinary equipment these days (has been since the 90's), I don't think you'll have a problem. You see, television is shot with movie equipment because it's cheaper. The cameraman just keeps in mind that they'll be cutting off the edges to convert the film to Pan and Scan. So he's careful not to stick anything in the sides that the viewer might actually want to see.
Unfortuntately, that does have some side effects. While Babylon 5 was shot with 16:9 cameras, the sides of the shots often contained crew or stage equipment that couldn't be shown on film. So when they converted it to HD, they had to make a decision about each scene as to whether they could use the negatives, pinch the Pan and Scan, or black out the lower and upper areas of the Pan and Scan conversion. The result is that B5 in HD is a mixed bag.
Thankfully, studios have become more cognizant of 16:9 for television since then. As a result, shows like Stargate SG-1 are easily transferred to DVD in 16:9 rather than the 4:3 they were broadcast at. Getting back to Firefly, it was also transferred to DVD in 16:9, so any broadcast of the show in HD should look just fine. (Actually, it should look GREAT because of great camera work and the awesome special effects by Zoic Studios - the same studio currently working on Battlestar Galactica.)
The entire unit is just a test. So they sent up whatever was cool to look at. I mean, I don't think science is going to be majorly advanced by Jumping Beans and Magnetix.:)
In fact everyone can now see for themselves what the Bigelow station looks like. Surprisingly, it looks a lot like just another space station. Seeing it deployed like that, it looks a heck of a lot sturdier than Slashdot impressions would lead you to believe.:)
Slashdot Mirror
1. Someone's getting their MBits and GBits mixed up. Samsung has announced 32-gigabit (4GB) flash chips, not 32 megabit.
2. NAND has traditionally been shunned in many uses because it can usually only be accessed as a block device, and not a standard ROM device. Which makes it unsuitable for many embedded applications. Thus this chip is probably targetted at the thumb drive market.
3. This is exciting stuff! According to the article, PRAM is supposed to have processing speeds similar to RAM, and does not require erasure or sectoring. The only downside is that they don't give any hard figures on what "fast processing speed" means. Depending on what that actually means, we could start seeing machines that are able to instantly hibernate like EROS, but without the added step of writing to disk.
4. The 512 MBit (64MB) device may sound small, but I imagine that more than one chip will be chained together to create a larger storage device. Samsung will probably also work to produce larger chips once they have all the early production issues worked out.
5. The CIO article is already slow, so I'll add one tidbit they had. According to CIO, Samsung is considering PRAM to be a good fit for replaceing Flash memory in mobile phones. Considering the lower price, this could be a good fit. The only question is, does it use more or less power during read/write cycles?
And that pretty much confirms it. As with most trolls, you speak in absolutes.
Oh yes, why don't I just nip off and type up a 300 page document that restates everything that was already in the link I linked to, just because a random troll on the Internet states that "review sites are wrong".
You want "abusive language"? I have not used any yet. I have stated fact to date. Now I will state fact with abusive language as you apparently so desire: You are either a troll or an idiot.
Happy now?
And you know this because... ???
And therefore it must be moronic and of no value. Right.
(In best McKay, "using power" tone)
Losing Credibility... Losing Credibility...
Except that he made explicit predictions about the series that all held true, documented regular continutiy problems both with the other Star Trek series AND internally to the show, as well as pointed out the sources of their stolen "ideas". But you wouldn't know that, because you weren't paying the slightest bit of attention. You just want to yammer on about how it's all just an opinion, and you're REALLY smart for pointing out something that was never argued in the first place!
The amazing part is that we're now on your third post, and all you've figured out is that we're not talking about First Contact. The fact that 90% of the post was about disproving that B&B were "scapegoats" has gone entirely over your head.
Do yourself a favor. Quit while you're behind.
A review of First Contact? I think not! Pay more attention.
I "remember" that the poster claimed B&B were being used as scapegoats. His reference to FC was just as offhanded as mine was. i.e. He tried to use it to "prove" that B&B were good writers, and I mentioned that my own opinion of it was fairly low.
Seriously, I can't believe you're now on your second response and STILL think that I posted a review of First Contact. Get with the program, will you?
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Do you know what you're talking about? Because I certainly don't.
- Distract from a factual point by arguing with the opinion as if it were being forced on you? Check.
Yeah, because Paramount kept renewing their contract for the run of DS9, Voyager, and finally Enterprise. They had ample opportunity to cut back their contracts, or at least negotiate shorter ones. But NOOOOOO. They kept giving these morons MORE money (as in, larger contracts!) for the crappy work they were doing.
Then Berman had the gall to give an interview where he whined about how hard it was being a producer, and that people wrote him letters about "stupid stuff" like the phasers being fired out of the photon torpedo banks or an episode contradicting previously established facts. Nevermind that Gene used to actually listen to those same fans, and planned things like the control panels in TNG to address common issues.
Suuuurrre. Tell you what, go to this page and read up on his reviews of the Enterprise episodes. Then look me straight in the eye and tell me he wasn't right.
- No story arc planning? Check.
- Inconsistent characters? Check.
- No continuity? Check.
- Obsession with potty humor? Check.
- Using sex to try to improve ratings? Check.
Whether you like his opinion or not, every prediction he made based on previous episodes ended up holding true for future episodes.
Oh, and First Contact was not that great of a movie. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't particularly good either.
Ah, but did you know that the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" that aired was quite different from the original pilot version?
Is it so much to ask that B&B be fired for incompetence? But noooooooo. Paramount had to keep them on until the bitter end.
It's my... show... my... show!
A teacher who can get the pig to at least feign interest is an exceptional teacher. The unfortunate fact of life, however, is that not every teacher is going to be an exceptional teacher. So expecting that there are sufficient numbers of exceptional high school teachers to overcome the mental blocks placed by the elementary teachings is ludicrous. It only serves to treat the symptom rather than the problem.
Treat the problem, and you'll find that the occasional "ok" teacher (or even bad teacher) has a low impact on the student.
My sister went through some college classes on teaching, as a prelude to working toward becoming a teacher. Unfortuantely, they tried to teach her to always normalize the children. So the reason why your elementary teachers are dropping in quality is that they're being taught by predecessors to keep up the bad work.
Actually, I said that the results of the high schools are not good, but that the problem is the elementary schools. I'll try to chose my words carefully here, because it's a complex issue that's ripe for misunderstanding.
My experience is that high schools are not the problem. The teachers in many high schools manage to do a decent job of teaching, except that the students do a poor job of learning. The reason why the students do so poorly is that they're following the pattern they learned in elementary: School is just work, and you are just like everyone else. This is drilled into the kids to such a degree that anyone who shows a strong interest in a field like science or arts is derided (and sometimes bullied) as being a "nerd" or a "pansy", and are treated as inferior. Especially by the "jocks" (for boys) and "popularity cliques" (for girls).
You have to understand, by the time someone reaches high school, they are already a young adult. While they lack life's experience, their demenor, interests, and personality have already been decided. High school level topics (and on into college) are topics that young adults must take even a modicum of interest in to learn about. Plenty of resources are available to complete one's education, both in class and out of class. At best, high school merely introduces you to a wide variety of topics.
In elementary, however, a child's mind is still a developing thing; ripe for influence. THAT is the time at which a person is grown and shaped. If the parents don't care, the school tells the child that everyone is the same, and the educational foundations are presented through methods that are difficult for children to grasp (e.g. reading by recognition, "new math", lack of focus on language skills, etc.) then what kind of development is the child getting?
Perhaps the most telling thing to me is the children who go to private or home school for elementary, then go to a public high school. These young adults take far more interest in the topics, and usually graduate at the top of their class. They do extremely well in life, despite being exposed to public school.
Is that a little clearer?
Ok, you asked for it...
Having taken an interest in school systems and their results, I take exception to the fact that incredible amounts of money is being spent, but that this money is not finding its way into the education. As you say, you may end up with an $800.00 budget for science experiments. Yet a school might invest hundreds of thousand to millions into a new football field or sports equipment.
I don't think it's that simple. I think if we want our kids to have good schools educators, we need that money flowing into their educations. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen as long as extra-curicular activities are seen as more important than the curicular activities.
However, I feel compelled to point out that a large number of high schools teachers manage to do quite well despite the shortfall of funds. Like yourself, the teachers look to pass on as much science and technology as they can. The problem is, if the kids are missing a good elementary education, they tend to take less interest in a higher education.
Which brings us back around to...
Which comes back to what I was saying. You've got a two-fold problem with elementary education:
1. The parents don't care enough about their kids education, and treat it as daycare.
2. The teachers are trained to normalize the children rather than recognize individual achievement and ability, lest the school be accused by the parents of making Johnny feel unimportant or underachieving. Never mind that part of growing up is to learn that you can't be the best at everything, and that each person has their own talents and abilities.
Simply increasing funding will not solve these problems. These are socio-economic issues that go beyond simple greenbacks. The sooner the public is made aware that the problem is elementary (my dear Watson... sorry.
So I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to NOT disagree with you, but just point out that we're in full agreement, but that the situation is complex and fraught with a large number of competing issues.
I can say from personal experience that you're allowing your preconceptions to get in the way. Private schools are far from a playground for the rich. For example, the private school I send my children to actually has quite a number of low income families sending their children there. As a whole, the school has produced academically superior children.
There's also the case of home schoolers, who continue to outperform their public school peers. A large percentage of home schoolers are in the lower to middle classes. i.e. Nothing special.
So there's absolutely no evidence that the success of non-public schooling has anything to do with the students being superior from the get-go. If there is any area of superiority, it's in the choices the parents have made in ensuring that their child gets the best education possible.
Because that isn't the answer. The current school systems are already being pumped cash, but still show horrible results. Especially when compared to private schools. What Microsoft is doing is not a bad idea. I just cringe at the idea of applying "Microsoft Management Procedures" as a panacea to all the school's problems. Most likely, all that technology will just mean that the students do just as badly, but in a high tech environment!
Of course, the problem really stems from poor elementry education. Students are rarely taught a solid foundation that they can grasp, and concepts like personal responsibility, individual talent, and academic achievement are wiped away as unimportant. Just so long as nobody feels they're special and nobody feels that they're not normal, then who cares if the academic bar is going lower and lower?
Unfortunately, I find it doubtful that things will change as long as Political Correctness rules our schools and parents see elementary as nothing more than free day care.
AFAIK, the only models of the 6502 are 6502, 6507 (fewer pins), 65C02 (fixes bugs), and 65816 (16 bit). These cores have been implemented by various processors, and are still often used in modern microcontrollers. You're probably thinking of either the 65C816, or a specific manufacturer's model number.
Are you saying that you actually hex edited your programs? Ouch. Now that's old school!
To be serious for a moment, the 6502 series (which included the 6507 and 65C02) was an excellent processor architecture that was incredibly easy to learn on. Its small instruction set, focus on 8 bit instructions, and logical segmenting made it popular both in real usage (Commodore 64, Atari 2600, Nintendo Entertainment System, Atari 8-bit computers, Apple II, BBC Micro, etc.) AND in teaching.
Just about anyone can learn to program it by reading the documentation. It's so simple, it can even replace BASIC as a first language. (Although, you might have a bit of diffculty doing "Hello World" unless you understand the hardware you're programming for.)
Duh. They'll emulate the 6507 in the Atari 2600. That way they can run it on real, modern hardware!
If they're shooting with a Betacam, then they need to upgrade to an HDCam. (Available since 1997.) However, anything done on 35mm (like Firefly) can be digitally resampled to create a high-def print. You'll be happy to know that UHD has done exactly that.
That's just laziness. The station is basically taking what it has on hand (16:9 NTSC film) rather than getting an HD copy made from the masters. Of course, they need the studio to actually produce such a copy, so I imagine that HD broadcasts are often unavailable.
Since HD *is* ordinary equipment these days (has been since the 90's), I don't think you'll have a problem. You see, television is shot with movie equipment because it's cheaper. The cameraman just keeps in mind that they'll be cutting off the edges to convert the film to Pan and Scan. So he's careful not to stick anything in the sides that the viewer might actually want to see.
Unfortuntately, that does have some side effects. While Babylon 5 was shot with 16:9 cameras, the sides of the shots often contained crew or stage equipment that couldn't be shown on film. So when they converted it to HD, they had to make a decision about each scene as to whether they could use the negatives, pinch the Pan and Scan, or black out the lower and upper areas of the Pan and Scan conversion. The result is that B5 in HD is a mixed bag.
Thankfully, studios have become more cognizant of 16:9 for television since then. As a result, shows like Stargate SG-1 are easily transferred to DVD in 16:9 rather than the 4:3 they were broadcast at. Getting back to Firefly, it was also transferred to DVD in 16:9, so any broadcast of the show in HD should look just fine. (Actually, it should look GREAT because of great camera work and the awesome special effects by Zoic Studios - the same studio currently working on Battlestar Galactica.)
The entire unit is just a test. So they sent up whatever was cool to look at. I mean, I don't think science is going to be majorly advanced by Jumping Beans and Magnetix.
In fact everyone can now see for themselves what the Bigelow station looks like. Surprisingly, it looks a lot like just another space station. Seeing it deployed like that, it looks a heck of a lot sturdier than Slashdot impressions would lead you to believe. :)