Have you ever tried MS Media player on the Apple? It pretty much sucks.
Correction: It is probably the suckiest app on the Mac. You can't even drop a movie on its icon, fer' Chris'sakes! So you do the song and dance with "File -> Open" just to get a dialog that says "Windows (snort!) Media Player has unexpectedly quit."
That's what I'm thinking too. The more I look at it, the more it reminds me of those old SCSI connectors. Given that the device probably doesn't have SCSI. the only reason for a custom port would be a docking port.
Okay, I managed to grab a Google Cache of the specs. No mention of RS232, but lots of mention of FireWire. Still, I have FireWire on my Mac and the port looks all wrong. It's too bad that photo is so low-res or I might actually be able to make it out.
No, it's too wide to be a VGA out. I think the VGA out is the port next to it. (If you look at Photo 5, you'll see a long bar connector and then a short stubby connector.) Unfortunately, the site is well Slashdotted, so I can't check out the specs.
The "WMA superior" troll is not the only thing that stinks here. This is being reported by "Connected Home Mag" which I've never heard of before. It also states that "onlookers were surprised". Surprised where? At the recent Apple conference? We didn't hear it there. At an HP conference? Why hasn't anyone else picked up the story? I think this article is a load of B.S. At least until I see an official announcement from HP or Apple.
If you have a chip line, and you test each at its fastest speed, the ones that fail are simply downgraded.
The act of downgrading doesn't make the chip more susceptible to failure or that it will run hotter; it just means it doesn't work at the higher speed.
(rolls eyes) Would you then like to explain why they downgrade the chip? Here's a hint: they downgrade it because it can't perform at higher levels. Thus forcing your chip to higher levels may result in anything from errors to all out failure.
So it would make "toast". That's just stupidity dribbling from your chin.
I see that manners on Slashdot are at an all time high.
Ah, here we are. I tend to forget how much of this was in print back in those days. Nearly all mentions of the reason for disabling were in UseNet posts. Not exactly the best corroberation. WikiPedia has the scoop as well.
Oh, and the magic Google search is "486SX Intel disabled". If you search about the 486SX coprocessor, you get various junk about the 486's version of the Pentium bug.
They weren't selling defective parts. They were selling parts that had flaws in non-functional areas. Intel would explicitly disable the math coprocessor on 486DX chips that had flaws in this area, then market it as a low end "SX" chip that lacked a coprocessor.
No, I was well aware of the changes made. But the reason behind those changes was that those chips had flawed or damaged silicon. By disabing part of the features, they were able to resell them as "lower end" models instead of throwing them away.
Anyone in the fab business can tell you that more features on silicon == lower yield. Intel simply found a way to make a profit off of something that would otherwise have been worthless.
If I'm not mistaken, why would you even want a fx5900 in the first place?
Because NVidia supports FreeBSD and Linux, while ATI has been giving less than stellar support to Linux? Besides, my GeForce2 GTS is still sufficient for most games. Does the performance gap between ATI and NVidia really change things that much?
Based on the 3DLabs article, I'd be concerned that this is a situation like what happened with the Intel 486DX/SX. i.e. The chips that test better are marked as DX and the chips that have minor flaws are downgraded and marked SX. Installing the upgrade BIOS may put a strain on your chip that could damage it.
Basically, if you do this, don't be surprised if your card becomes toast a shortwhile after.
You know the best part about "third rails" on trains? That's where the power flows.:-)
Seriously though, it just makes sense. Anyone who looks at the possibility of a space-baeed economy should see that it can't run 100% through the government. If I get modded down for telling it like it is, so be it. It won't be the first time, it won't be the last, and it most certainly won't stop people from hearing it.:-)
The only jobs that going to space would create is government jobs (via Nasa, JPL, whatever). Ok, so taht would be more jobs but paid by whom. Mister Taxpayer (directly).
This is true. But in truth, there's no way the government can keep us in space. There *has* to be some form of commercial incentive. The X-Prize is a good start, but government incentives would encourage companies to develop cheaper launch solutions.
I'd also like to see nuclear space drives developed by NASA and licensed by the private sector. The most obvious customer would be the military (they'd be drooling at the chance to build a space carrier). But there'd probably be a decent sized market for space cruise ships. And as they improve, you could even take that Mars vacation you always dreamed of.
Once we're up there, the industry could become self-sustaining. Asteroids, moons, planets and planetoids are all untapped resources that could be mined and resold in space. In other words, the space economy will self-perpetuate. We just need to get that far.
I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the general notion, not every geek's.
It was. I just felt like poking at you after our last long-winded conversation.:-)
More seriously, the technology development of expanding into space could give the economy a tremendous boost. If you look at modern history, every technology added to the government, industrial, or consumer markets results in more skilled, high-paying jobs. In fact, the Aerospace industry built in the '60s was growing quite well before the Space Program took a turn for the worse (i.e. Clinton's administration). If it weren't for military contracts, aerospace would be dead by now.
If we're going to do it, let's do it right this time. We're going into space and we're not coming back.
We're facing record deficits, we're engaged in a two-front war, the economy is in the shitter and Bush still wants to expand the space program/NASA/JPL/whatever? Even the conservatives are shocked and angered by these words.
Huh. I consider myself conservative, but I kinda like the idea. Go figure.
Not everything that we can do, is worthwhile to do.
So, in your opinion, was going to the moon worthwhile?
Its even ironic because in this particular case Hillary now wants people to NOT climb Everest anymore becuase of the damage its doing.
In *his* opinion, should we go to Mars? We've never been there and no engineering attempt has EVER been made on that scale. How much you want to bet that he'd be in favor?
Yes, I know that making ionengines powerfull enought to give a manned spacecraft an acceleration of 0.1G is something we can't do today, or even this week.
Yes, we can. Gentlemen, we have the technology. We can build the craft. All that we require is the desire to do so. JIMO will be the first test of a Fission powered ION drive, which is a more advanced (and powerful) version of the NERVA and GRNA engines. With an accelerated development program, we could build the engines within two years and begin flying shortly thereafter.
Tell everyone you know. Shout it from the rooftops. We can go to Mars!
Slashdot Mirror
See now I loved that book, but I agree that the ending was crap.
;-)
I thought it was great right up until the end. Unfortunately, the ending really spoiled the whole book for me.
Oh shit this is off topic isn't it?
Here's where I insert my kung-fu moderator dodge. i.e. I've got karma to burn.
Have you ever tried MS Media player on the Apple? It pretty much sucks.
Correction: It is probably the suckiest app on the Mac. You can't even drop a movie on its icon, fer' Chris'sakes! So you do the song and dance with "File -> Open" just to get a dialog that says "Windows (snort!) Media Player has unexpectedly quit."
Ah, Microsoft engineering at its finest.
Then a strange alien "virus" kills the survivors.
Except it will mutate into a harmless strain just before the hero dies! I generally like Crichton, but God I hate that book.
That's what I'm thinking too. The more I look at it, the more it reminds me of those old SCSI connectors. Given that the device probably doesn't have SCSI. the only reason for a custom port would be a docking port.
Okay, I managed to grab a Google Cache of the specs. No mention of RS232, but lots of mention of FireWire. Still, I have FireWire on my Mac and the port looks all wrong. It's too bad that photo is so low-res or I might actually be able to make it out.
No, it's too wide to be a VGA out. I think the VGA out is the port next to it. (If you look at Photo 5, you'll see a long bar connector and then a short stubby connector.) Unfortunately, the site is well Slashdotted, so I can't check out the specs.
Is that an RS-232 port I see on the side? If it is, why? Is there something wrong with just providing a few USB ports?
So you're saying this "mud" may actually just be Martian rat urine?
Of course. Haven't you heard of the Biker Mice From Mars?
The "WMA superior" troll is not the only thing that stinks here. This is being reported by "Connected Home Mag" which I've never heard of before. It also states that "onlookers were surprised". Surprised where? At the recent Apple conference? We didn't hear it there. At an HP conference? Why hasn't anyone else picked up the story? I think this article is a load of B.S. At least until I see an official announcement from HP or Apple.
News for the artistic, stuff that doesn't matter to geeks.
Personally, I'd much rather be hearing more info about Mars and the like. *sigh* Oh well.
If you have a chip line, and you test each at its fastest speed, the ones that fail are simply downgraded.
The act of downgrading doesn't make the chip more susceptible to failure or that it will run hotter; it just means it doesn't work at the higher speed.
(rolls eyes) Would you then like to explain why they downgrade the chip? Here's a hint: they downgrade it because it can't perform at higher levels. Thus forcing your chip to higher levels may result in anything from errors to all out failure.
So it would make "toast". That's just stupidity dribbling from your chin.
I see that manners on Slashdot are at an all time high.
See my responses to this post.
Read this post for links that corroberate my above post.
Ah, here we are. I tend to forget how much of this was in print back in those days. Nearly all mentions of the reason for disabling were in UseNet posts. Not exactly the best corroberation. WikiPedia has the scoop as well.
Oh, and the magic Google search is "486SX Intel disabled". If you search about the 486SX coprocessor, you get various junk about the 486's version of the Pentium bug.
They weren't selling defective parts. They were selling parts that had flaws in non-functional areas. Intel would explicitly disable the math coprocessor on 486DX chips that had flaws in this area, then market it as a low end "SX" chip that lacked a coprocessor.
Correct. The parent was ill informed.
No, I was well aware of the changes made. But the reason behind those changes was that those chips had flawed or damaged silicon. By disabing part of the features, they were able to resell them as "lower end" models instead of throwing them away.
Anyone in the fab business can tell you that more features on silicon == lower yield. Intel simply found a way to make a profit off of something that would otherwise have been worthless.
If I'm not mistaken, why would you even want a fx5900 in the first place?
Because NVidia supports FreeBSD and Linux, while ATI has been giving less than stellar support to Linux? Besides, my GeForce2 GTS is still sufficient for most games. Does the performance gap between ATI and NVidia really change things that much?
Based on the 3DLabs article, I'd be concerned that this is a situation like what happened with the Intel 486DX/SX. i.e. The chips that test better are marked as DX and the chips that have minor flaws are downgraded and marked SX. Installing the upgrade BIOS may put a strain on your chip that could damage it.
Basically, if you do this, don't be surprised if your card becomes toast a shortwhile after.
You know the best part about "third rails" on trains? That's where the power flows. :-)
:-)
Seriously though, it just makes sense. Anyone who looks at the possibility of a space-baeed economy should see that it can't run 100% through the government. If I get modded down for telling it like it is, so be it. It won't be the first time, it won't be the last, and it most certainly won't stop people from hearing it.
The only jobs that going to space would create is government jobs (via Nasa, JPL, whatever). Ok, so taht would be more jobs but paid by whom. Mister Taxpayer (directly).
This is true. But in truth, there's no way the government can keep us in space. There *has* to be some form of commercial incentive. The X-Prize is a good start, but government incentives would encourage companies to develop cheaper launch solutions.
I'd also like to see nuclear space drives developed by NASA and licensed by the private sector. The most obvious customer would be the military (they'd be drooling at the chance to build a space carrier). But there'd probably be a decent sized market for space cruise ships. And as they improve, you could even take that Mars vacation you always dreamed of.
Once we're up there, the industry could become self-sustaining. Asteroids, moons, planets and planetoids are all untapped resources that could be mined and resold in space. In other words, the space economy will self-perpetuate. We just need to get that far.
I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the general notion, not every geek's.
:-)
It was. I just felt like poking at you after our last long-winded conversation.
More seriously, the technology development of expanding into space could give the economy a tremendous boost. If you look at modern history, every technology added to the government, industrial, or consumer markets results in more skilled, high-paying jobs. In fact, the Aerospace industry built in the '60s was growing quite well before the Space Program took a turn for the worse (i.e. Clinton's administration). If it weren't for military contracts, aerospace would be dead by now.
If we're going to do it, let's do it right this time. We're going into space and we're not coming back.
Anyone wanna bet that some of these guys will be found wandering, naked and confused, with their ass cheeks duct-taped together?
How would they be wandering around when they're handcuffed together on a merry-go-round in their undies? I HATE rent-a-cops!
We're facing record deficits, we're engaged in a two-front war, the economy is in the shitter and Bush still wants to expand the space program/NASA/JPL/whatever? Even the conservatives are shocked and angered by these words.
Huh. I consider myself conservative, but I kinda like the idea. Go figure.
Not everything that we can do, is worthwhile to do.
So, in your opinion, was going to the moon worthwhile?
Its even ironic because in this particular case Hillary now wants people to NOT climb Everest anymore becuase of the damage its doing.
In *his* opinion, should we go to Mars? We've never been there and no engineering attempt has EVER been made on that scale. How much you want to bet that he'd be in favor?
Yes, I know that making ionengines powerfull enought to give a manned spacecraft an acceleration of 0.1G is something we can't do today, or even this week.
Yes, we can. Gentlemen, we have the technology. We can build the craft. All that we require is the desire to do so. JIMO will be the first test of a Fission powered ION drive, which is a more advanced (and powerful) version of the NERVA and GRNA engines. With an accelerated development program, we could build the engines within two years and begin flying shortly thereafter.
Tell everyone you know. Shout it from the rooftops. We can go to Mars!