Just configure your incoming MTA to dump word files and pass the remainder of the message on to the user. Then you can easily complain that the word file didn't get to you, and if you (and enough other people) keep complaining, the remainder will get the idea soon enough. Just call it part of a good firewall to protect your network against viruses.
Editing video on ATA isn't too bad, under the right circumstances (meaning you are using a dedicated SCSI to ATA raid adaptor with 1 ATA driver per chanel and at least 4 drives). The right circumstances don't save as much money as people would hope for though.
I have my live in a Intel P2 system with a TNT2 video card. I'm seriously considering switching to a soundlink, but I'm not sure if I want to give up being able to record (which I never do in this machine currently, but I do someday want to try voice recognition on it). But, I suppose I can alway buy a cheap second USB audio device for recording.
Frequencies greater than 20khz can produce resonant tones in the room that can be heard. But that isn't important.
Digital audio is poorly designed. According to the Nyquist theorem you refer to, 48khz is enough to reproduce 24khz audio signals, IF the phase of each frequency is known. Otherwise you could have a 24khz sine wave that is coincidentally sampled only on the 0 amplitude points which would make it be recorded as silence. To make up for this problem, higher frequency rates are needed. If you are sampling at 96khz, then for a 24khz sine wave, there is no possible way to only be sampleing it at the 0 amplitude points since you would be sampleing the wave 4 times per cycle. 192hz also shows up, and that is still only sampling a 24khz wave 8 time a cycle.
A superior system would be delta sigma modulation (google it for additional information) which uses 1 bit encoding with typically something like a 2.8mhz sampling rate for a frequency responce range approaching 100khz.
As to the proper number of bit for PCM, the big problem is that we hear volume logrithmically but currently digital audio records linearly. So while for high and moderate volume, more bits are deemed unhearable, but for very quite things (like quiet passages in classical music), the extra bits come in handy very quickly. The extra bits are also very handy for DSP type tasks, although one could arguably truncate them after processing if they think the log argument is BS.
Anyone who uses a USB hdd is asking for pain to begin with. However, if we ignore the HDD, things look a little better. Most computers have two USB chanels. This means that you can put your CD-RW on one, and your usb audio device on another. The tricky part is what about the other devices like keyboard, mouse, wacom tablet, and digital camera. Aside from the digital camera, the other devices probably don't generate enough data to interfere with either audio or cd burning, but I haven't actually tested it. And hopefully the camera would realize that it doesn't need to try to grab all the bandwidth.
More realistically though, just add an additional USB card in place of your sound card. Well, I make it sound easy enough, but personally I was hoping to be able to replace me soundcard with a firewire card, so suddently things look more complicated again. A new motherboard would make life easier (one with firewire and SCSI built in).
What I want to know is what is the compatibility of this thing going to be. I suspect that it is not going to conform to the USB Audio standard like the stereolink 1200 does, and I don't expect that we will see linux drivers anytime soon (let alone full featured drivers) based on how excruciatingly slowly the SB Live drivers are progressing. If only the stereolink device could also do full quality recording from RCA inputs.
Once the sound card is outside of your case, it can be properly sheilded. Actually, I don't know why they can't sheild the card while inside the case with a copper plate over the ADC/DAC chip and wiring running to the jacks. Anyway, this is to say that while ideally the USB audio device wouldn't be too near a TV or moniter, in reality, it shouldn't matter if the box was well designed.
There were rumors that the initial windows versions were also written completely in assembly. You can write win16 and win32 code in assembly, but it sure ain't pretty.
Well, for various reasons, vector machines are head and shoulders better at certain problems. Specifically, if you problem can be reduced to solving a small number of very large matrices, then you want a vector machine. If you aren't located in the US, then Hitachi or NEC machines are probably a better buy than Crays. Here in the US, there are huge tariffs on imported supercomputers to help prop up cray, although we can now get NECs affordably thanks to Cray being a distributer for them.
American supercomputers (meaning Crays) are made in the US using parts that are mostly made in the US because for certain DOD contracts this is what is required. The rest of the classic supercomputer (meaning vector machines instead of ccNUMA style machines, ie Origin3k, SP2, etc) market seems to be supplied by japanese companies (NEC, Fujitsu, Hitachi being the main ones). I doubt that Japan willingly lets their supers go to china.
Could you provide a citation for the claim that Jimmy Neutron was done in lightwave?
BTW, when they say that FF:TSW was done in Maya and PRMan, they usually don't mention that fact that while the two can be used off the self, those two programs are a great framework for developing your own 3D pipeline. You can modify almost every part of either program to meet your needs, and the reports are that for FF:TSW they put in many, many man years of addition programming.
Maybe you already have an extremely nice 21" monitor. A year ago my parents (can't afford tuition and rent, so tuition wins for now) decided to upgrade from a 21"TV to a 27" one. I didn't expect to feel that there was any quality increase, and in fact when I first turned it on to a broadcast, I was not impressed (I admit, I have the cable signal running into the VCR, then back out to the TV. I don't have any other spare inputs on the TV without having to constantly swap cables).
Then I switched over to a DVD which was hooked up to the svideo input, and the difference was amazing. Switching back and forth between the DVD hooked to svideo versus the dvd hooked to the RCA composite jack is a night and day difference. The scan lines are less obvious, the colors are sharper. I recommend that everyone buy a TV set with svideo in.
It still stinks for watching normal TV though. Stupidity of hooking the VCR up to coax in of the TV set aside, an even bigger problem is that our cable feed is just plain terrible. Not a single jack in the house looks anywhere near as sharp as the picture from cable in our old house.
Of course, we are a long, long ways from HDTV. In my area, only the PBS station supports it, and I refuse to get a satalite dish.
I'm not surprised. I've never been impressed with even the most expensive rear projection TV sets. The contrast always seems poor, and the colors dim and faded. I'm not surprised that an HDTV isn't that much better.
Currently, the future of large screen TVs is immediately in large tube sets, and further out in plasma display sets. Now those are some nice pictures, and as an added bonus, they more frequently have VGA or close to VGA (close meaning so that all you need is a special cable) inputs.
The Babylon5 animation was done w/ Lightwave, which at the begining of the show was tied to the VideoToaster hardware. However, Newtek did support numerous ways of making rendering faster. I believe that initially the Babylon5 people went with MIPS accelerator cards (a card with 1 or more MIPS r4k chips for rendering) that ran ScreamerNet, and later they moved to rendering over a network of workstations (NT on Intel and/or Alphas), and later still moved to using Lightwave on workstations (and of course still rendering on them as well).
But also note that the rendering for Babylon 5 is all space scenes, which are about the easiest things to do, and also that the rendering isn't very good by todays standard (although still good enough to get the idea accross).
Bah. Real men don't strive for OpenStep, they strive for Genera (http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~moelle r/symbolics-info/symbolics.html).
Now that was real programming.
(OK, I confess, I've still haven't actually used it, since Symbolics machines are still worth quite a bit of money, and I can't afford the mid range machines, and the low end ones take more space/electricity than I can supply).
It is not appropriate to compare WindowMaker to GNOME (or KDE) since WindowMaker is a window manager, and GNOME is a desktop environment. It would be more appropriate to compare WindowMaker and Sawfish(the windowmanager that GNOME defaults to). Further, there is no reason that you can't use both, like having the gnome panels and desktop tools running, but using WindowMaker instead of Sawfish (which I have done in the past).
Now, GNOME2 can be pretty sluggish. However, Sawfish itself seems to be reasonably fast (and low CPU usage) on my P2-200. I doubt that I would feel the same way about sawfish on a 486 (which I typically use WindowMaker or blackbox on for speed). The whole construction of sawfish fasinates me (it is basically written in lisp), and I keep wanting to find a way to integrate it with emacs and my other lisp programs). However, I haven't yet had the time to investigate making sawfish behave in a more WindowMaker like maner. It should be possible though.
When I recently loaded WM (I used to use it, but I had decided to try GNOME for a few months), it took me forever to find a load monitor that properly supported my system, and wmflame unfortunately wasn't one of them. Why is it so hard to write load meters that indicate the load for each CPU in an SMP system?
I generally use "cat `find./ -name *.cc` `find./ -name *.h` | wc -l" when I want a line count for a project. Of course, that does mean that comments consisting of only white space and comments are included but...
Around here (PA), most stores are Fender or yamaha. Thankfully there is one gibson dealer though.
But really, I don't want ethernet to my guitar. Maybe ethernet from the amp, but not from the guitar. I like my pickups buzzing, humming, and feedingback.
Hey, if you get them to create a.rabid_attack_wombles, I would buy several domains under it. Just imagine, and please go to:
http://www.uberlame.rabid_attack_wombles/ hehe.
Slashdot Mirror
Better to just ask them to use plain text or HMTL than rtfs. But, maybe I'm the only one who thinks that.
Just configure your incoming MTA to dump word files and pass the remainder of the message on to the user. Then you can easily complain that the word file didn't get to you, and if you (and enough other people) keep complaining, the remainder will get the idea soon enough. Just call it part of a good firewall to protect your network against viruses.
They didn't even include RCA?!? Yuck!!!
Editing video on ATA isn't too bad, under the right circumstances (meaning you are using a dedicated SCSI to ATA raid adaptor with 1 ATA driver per chanel and at least 4 drives). The right circumstances don't save as much money as people would hope for though.
I have my live in a Intel P2 system with a TNT2 video card. I'm seriously considering switching to a soundlink, but I'm not sure if I want to give up being able to record (which I never do in this machine currently, but I do someday want to try voice recognition on it). But, I suppose I can alway buy a cheap second USB audio device for recording.
Frequencies greater than 20khz can produce resonant tones in the room that can be heard. But that isn't important.
Digital audio is poorly designed. According to the Nyquist theorem you refer to, 48khz is enough to reproduce 24khz audio signals, IF the phase of each frequency is known. Otherwise you could have a 24khz sine wave that is coincidentally sampled only on the 0 amplitude points which would make it be recorded as silence. To make up for this problem, higher frequency rates are needed. If you are sampling at 96khz, then for a 24khz sine wave, there is no possible way to only be sampleing it at the 0 amplitude points since you would be sampleing the wave 4 times per cycle. 192hz also shows up, and that is still only sampling a 24khz wave 8 time a cycle.
A superior system would be delta sigma modulation (google it for additional information) which uses 1 bit encoding with typically something like a 2.8mhz sampling rate for a frequency responce range approaching 100khz.
As to the proper number of bit for PCM, the big problem is that we hear volume logrithmically but currently digital audio records linearly. So while for high and moderate volume, more bits are deemed unhearable, but for very quite things (like quiet passages in classical music), the extra bits come in handy very quickly. The extra bits are also very handy for DSP type tasks, although one could arguably truncate them after processing if they think the log argument is BS.
Screw the microphone preamp. Just give me a balanced XLR in with switchable phantom power, and I shall supply my own microphone preamp.
Anyone who uses a USB hdd is asking for pain to begin with. However, if we ignore the HDD, things look a little better. Most computers have two USB chanels. This means that you can put your CD-RW on one, and your usb audio device on another. The tricky part is what about the other devices like keyboard, mouse, wacom tablet, and digital camera. Aside from the digital camera, the other devices probably don't generate enough data to interfere with either audio or cd burning, but I haven't actually tested it. And hopefully the camera would realize that it doesn't need to try to grab all the bandwidth.
More realistically though, just add an additional USB card in place of your sound card. Well, I make it sound easy enough, but personally I was hoping to be able to replace me soundcard with a firewire card, so suddently things look more complicated again. A new motherboard would make life easier (one with firewire and SCSI built in).
What I want to know is what is the compatibility of this thing going to be. I suspect that it is not going to conform to the USB Audio standard like the stereolink 1200 does, and I don't expect that we will see linux drivers anytime soon (let alone full featured drivers) based on how excruciatingly slowly the SB Live drivers are progressing. If only the stereolink device could also do full quality recording from RCA inputs.
Once the sound card is outside of your case, it can be properly sheilded. Actually, I don't know why they can't sheild the card while inside the case with a copper plate over the ADC/DAC chip and wiring running to the jacks. Anyway, this is to say that while ideally the USB audio device wouldn't be too near a TV or moniter, in reality, it shouldn't matter if the box was well designed.
There were rumors that the initial windows versions were also written completely in assembly. You can write win16 and win32 code in assembly, but it sure ain't pretty.
Why not just use clusters?
Well, for various reasons, vector machines are head and shoulders better at certain problems. Specifically, if you problem can be reduced to solving a small number of very large matrices, then you want a vector machine. If you aren't located in the US, then Hitachi or NEC machines are probably a better buy than Crays. Here in the US, there are huge tariffs on imported supercomputers to help prop up cray, although we can now get NECs affordably thanks to Cray being a distributer for them.
Hmm. Found it.
i cl e_no=898&page=3
http://mag.awn.com/index.php3?ltype=pageone&art
The whole article is kinda interesting.
American supercomputers (meaning Crays) are made in the US using parts that are mostly made in the US because for certain DOD contracts this is what is required. The rest of the classic supercomputer (meaning vector machines instead of ccNUMA style machines, ie Origin3k, SP2, etc) market seems to be supplied by japanese companies (NEC, Fujitsu, Hitachi being the main ones). I doubt that Japan willingly lets their supers go to china.
Could you provide a citation for the claim that Jimmy Neutron was done in lightwave?
BTW, when they say that FF:TSW was done in Maya and PRMan, they usually don't mention that fact that while the two can be used off the self, those two programs are a great framework for developing your own 3D pipeline. You can modify almost every part of either program to meet your needs, and the reports are that for FF:TSW they put in many, many man years of addition programming.
Maybe you already have an extremely nice 21" monitor. A year ago my parents (can't afford tuition and rent, so tuition wins for now) decided to upgrade from a 21"TV to a 27" one. I didn't expect to feel that there was any quality increase, and in fact when I first turned it on to a broadcast, I was not impressed (I admit, I have the cable signal running into the VCR, then back out to the TV. I don't have any other spare inputs on the TV without having to constantly swap cables).
Then I switched over to a DVD which was hooked up to the svideo input, and the difference was amazing. Switching back and forth between the DVD hooked to svideo versus the dvd hooked to the RCA composite jack is a night and day difference. The scan lines are less obvious, the colors are sharper. I recommend that everyone buy a TV set with svideo in.
It still stinks for watching normal TV though. Stupidity of hooking the VCR up to coax in of the TV set aside, an even bigger problem is that our cable feed is just plain terrible. Not a single jack in the house looks anywhere near as sharp as the picture from cable in our old house.
Of course, we are a long, long ways from HDTV. In my area, only the PBS station supports it, and I refuse to get a satalite dish.
I'm not surprised. I've never been impressed with even the most expensive rear projection TV sets. The contrast always seems poor, and the colors dim and faded. I'm not surprised that an HDTV isn't that much better.
Currently, the future of large screen TVs is immediately in large tube sets, and further out in plasma display sets. Now those are some nice pictures, and as an added bonus, they more frequently have VGA or close to VGA (close meaning so that all you need is a special cable) inputs.
The Babylon5 animation was done w/ Lightwave, which at the begining of the show was tied to the VideoToaster hardware. However, Newtek did support numerous ways of making rendering faster. I believe that initially the Babylon5 people went with MIPS accelerator cards (a card with 1 or more MIPS r4k chips for rendering) that ran ScreamerNet, and later they moved to rendering over a network of workstations (NT on Intel and/or Alphas), and later still moved to using Lightwave on workstations (and of course still rendering on them as well).
But also note that the rendering for Babylon 5 is all space scenes, which are about the easiest things to do, and also that the rendering isn't very good by todays standard (although still good enough to get the idea accross).
That would be linux or other unixish OSs. Most people (myself included for this message) don't bother using them though.
Remeber, the original usage (aside from playing games) for Unix was as an industrial strength word processor for AT&T's legal department.
Bah. Real men don't strive for OpenStep, they strive for Genera (http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~moelle r/symbolics-info/symbolics.html).
Now that was real programming.
(OK, I confess, I've still haven't actually used it, since Symbolics machines are still worth quite a bit of money, and I can't afford the mid range machines, and the low end ones take more space/electricity than I can supply).
It is not appropriate to compare WindowMaker to GNOME (or KDE) since WindowMaker is a window manager, and GNOME is a desktop environment. It would be more appropriate to compare WindowMaker and Sawfish(the windowmanager that GNOME defaults to). Further, there is no reason that you can't use both, like having the gnome panels and desktop tools running, but using WindowMaker instead of Sawfish (which I have done in the past).
Now, GNOME2 can be pretty sluggish. However, Sawfish itself seems to be reasonably fast (and low CPU usage) on my P2-200. I doubt that I would feel the same way about sawfish on a 486 (which I typically use WindowMaker or blackbox on for speed). The whole construction of sawfish fasinates me (it is basically written in lisp), and I keep wanting to find a way to integrate it with emacs and my other lisp programs). However, I haven't yet had the time to investigate making sawfish behave in a more WindowMaker like maner. It should be possible though.
When I recently loaded WM (I used to use it, but I had decided to try GNOME for a few months), it took me forever to find a load monitor that properly supported my system, and wmflame unfortunately wasn't one of them. Why is it so hard to write load meters that indicate the load for each CPU in an SMP system?
I generally use "cat `find ./ -name *.cc` `find ./ -name *.h` | wc -l" when I want a line count for a project. Of course, that does mean that comments consisting of only white space and comments are included but...
Around here (PA), most stores are Fender or yamaha. Thankfully there is one gibson dealer though.
But really, I don't want ethernet to my guitar. Maybe ethernet from the amp, but not from the guitar. I like my pickups buzzing, humming, and feedingback.
It is my understanding that bootp points to an NFS server, meaning that if you use bootp, you are also using NFS.
Hey, if you get them to create a .rabid_attack_wombles, I would buy several domains under it. Just imagine, and please go to:
http://www.uberlame.rabid_attack_wombles/ hehe.