I would have to disagree with you - a $3000 rig will still outperform a new $500 PC 18months later - in games. Why? Because the graphics will be so much weaker. Also, the processor will only be a speed grade or two faster.
Actually, the digital radio in Europe and HDTV broadcasts also use OFDM, so I guess we can find out by seeing when WiLAN sues them...
That said, OFDM is amazingly elegant and efficient (in use of BW). It just requires the receiver to work harder to demodulate the data. So with a 300MB/s peak rate, you will need a much more powerful processor than 802.11g applications. So don't go looking for this in a portable solution for a long time...
The CD has outlived its usefulness to the labels. They want to move people onto a copy-protected medium so that the MP3 problem is squashed. And think how much better the properly leveled SACD will sound next to the clipped CD.
The FAQ on the website says that green wood and wet wood will not trip the stop.
Of course, I don't know what other circumstances could produce a false negative - perhaps touching the side of the blade while spinning, but not the teeth?
Well, if after a scientific process, it is determined that the chemicals are toxic, then what is your proposal? Dump mecury over the ocean so everything is dead?
In case you don't realize, not everything needs to be made of plastic. There was once this material called 'metal' (pronounced me' tal). Many metals are quite fire resistant. Computers, keyboards, and mice could easily be made of such a material.
It seems that there are a few here who don't think of things like the MB! It uses power too! And so does the Video Card, HDs, and memory.
In fact, I'd bet that the CPU is only about 20-30% of the power consumed in a system. Generally, systems with higher speed CPUs (hence more power), generally have the higher power graphics and HDs.
So while you Macaddicts may be absolutely correct about the CPU powers, it isn't the whole story. That's why I buy AMD!
Thanks for the comment on my general education. There are certainly those who would agree (esp. my foreign language teachers), however, I guess I'm just not as harsh on myself.
I don't want to go looking for an extended debate, but it seems to me that if you ease off on the boost at higher RPMs, then you really are loosing peak power. I think that whole premise of the article was "an aquatic sports car". In that case, reducing the maximum available power is almost a sin:)
I also think that if one truly wanted to, you could program the controller on a naturally aspirated V8 to reproduce the same flat torque effect.
I won't disagree with better fuel economy and smaller package. But, the peak power is much narrower, and unless you have a Contiuously Variable Transmission, a narrow peak power is not as functional for day-to-day usefulness.
I have never heard of a turbo 4 cylinder having a "flatter power curve" than a modern V8. The V8 has a lot more HP at lower RPMS than the turbo 4 (hence more torque).
The only advantage of the STi engine is weight. On an aquatic vehicle, the extra torque of a V8 would not be of much help if it were 30ft below the surface, and diving fast.
First, the cable TV system in the US is a fairly new network, meaning that the infrastructure itself is generally of higher quality. This is what allows cable to offer speeds superior to DSL. Second, a cable signal, being a much more powerful signal than DSL, and nearly always running on shielded lines, doesn't deteriorate near as badly over distance.
No, the age of the system has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of design purpose: for phone service, all that was needed was a bidirectional channel of 8KHz. For cable, you needed significantly more BW, but in one direction. If the phone system had be designed with the BW of cable, then POTS would cost vastly more than it does.
So what do you do with these, anyway? Make a fiber-optic transformer? What will the impact be on incident light? Will it have any interesting optical effects to the naked eye?
Yeah - there's a lot of 'funny' reactions to that. Personally, I wouldn't mind pissing on your lunch to see your 'funny' reaction. The only good thing about asshats such as this coward was when you were able to take them down. They'd always slink away, leaving a stain on battlenet.
I hope you pick up a 2^n++ month ban each time you are banned. Not that you would learn a lesson or anything, but to at least make battlenet more enjoyable.
Perhaps get two cell phones, and alternate use randomly. And the phone that you're not using you could put in your spouse's car for the day, so it looks like it is moving around too. And simply set up call forwarding on the unused phone so you don't miss calls. Not perfect, but it does make it a little more difficult for people to track you (for the paranoid amoung us).
You know - my main goal in my life is to have left the world a slightly bit better for me being here. I don't know how I'm doing (there is no place to check your score), but I know for a fact I'm not f'en it up as much as a lot of people (e.g. Congress).
I'm not sure if you watched both versions of FOTR, but based on that alone I'm willing to sign a petition. Watching the theatrical release with the stupid stair-jumping in Moria annoyed me to no end. When I watched the extended version there were so many other scenes which added to story so much more than the stupid stair-jumping scenes. At that point, I viewed Peter Jackson's judgement as lame.
Do you get wetter walking or running from point A to B in the rain? OK, let's make some key assumptions: The amount of rain falling is constant and is equal between point A and B. Wind is not a factor. Assume that the rain drops are at critical velocity. You move through the path at a constant velocity.
Now, imagine freezing time - with all of the raindrops fixed in place. The rain that would hit you in 3s is maybe 100 feet up, while the the rain that hits you in 6 sec is 200 feet up. So, you simply convert the amount of time it takes to traverse A to B, and convert that to the vertical distance of the rain drops that would hit you when you get to point B. Then, you can simply use C^2 = A^2 + B^2, where A is the path length and B corresponds to the amount of time (rain height). So minimizing the C, total path length in the rain reduces how wet you get. Even if you moved at near-infinite speed, you would still get wet in the rain, but not as wet as someone who never moved.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but a FAQ is not the same as a license agreement. I bet what the FAQ giveth, the fine print taketh away...
Yes, but I'm sure that Microsoft could easily change its mind. AKA - pull the rug out from under an Open Source project that uses such a feature.
I don't think it is possible for someone who works at CompUSA to actually configure a video card.
Even if the person knows how to do it, once they enter CompUSA, all skillz fade away...
Ashcroft is very selective in his definition of terrorist - this is much less publicized than it ought to be, IMO.
Look what Rambo did with only a knife!!
I would have to disagree with you - a $3000 rig will still outperform a new $500 PC 18months later - in games.
Why? Because the graphics will be so much weaker. Also, the processor will only be a speed grade or two faster.
Actually, the digital radio in Europe and HDTV broadcasts also use OFDM, so I guess we can find out by seeing when WiLAN sues them...
That said, OFDM is amazingly elegant and efficient (in use of BW). It just requires the receiver to work harder to demodulate the data. So with a 300MB/s peak rate, you will need a much more powerful processor than 802.11g applications. So don't go looking for this in a portable solution for a long time...
The record labels want to ruin the CD format
The CD has outlived its usefulness to the labels. They want to move people onto a copy-protected medium so that the MP3 problem is squashed. And think how much better the properly leveled SACD will sound next to the clipped CD.
They don't need to know the hardware ids for every component. They could get by just knowing the make/model. That much data is excessive.
The FAQ on the website says that green wood and wet wood will not trip the stop.
Of course, I don't know what other circumstances could produce a false negative - perhaps touching the side of the blade while spinning, but not the teeth?
Actually, this(scroll down to brief updates) is the real interesting one!!! It's always fascinated me as a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.
Well, if after a scientific process, it is determined that the chemicals are toxic, then what is your proposal? Dump mecury over the ocean so everything is dead?
In case you don't realize, not everything needs to be made of plastic. There was once this material called 'metal' (pronounced me' tal). Many metals are quite fire resistant. Computers, keyboards, and mice could easily be made of such a material.
In both cases he is hosed. HOW IS IT DIFFERENT???????
In case A: 256MB RAM & 256MB swap is hosed
Case B: 512MB RAM is also hosed
It seems that there are a few here who don't think of things like the MB! It uses power too! And so does the Video Card, HDs, and memory.
In fact, I'd bet that the CPU is only about 20-30% of the power consumed in a system. Generally, systems with higher speed CPUs (hence more power), generally have the higher power graphics and HDs.
So while you Macaddicts may be absolutely correct about the CPU powers, it isn't the whole story. That's why I buy AMD!
Thanks for the comment on my general education. There are certainly those who would agree (esp. my foreign language teachers), however, I guess I'm just not as harsh on myself.
:)
I don't want to go looking for an extended debate, but it seems to me that if you ease off on the boost at higher RPMs, then you really are loosing peak power. I think that whole premise of the article was "an aquatic sports car". In that case, reducing the maximum available power is almost a sin
I also think that if one truly wanted to, you could program the controller on a naturally aspirated V8 to reproduce the same flat torque effect.
I won't disagree with better fuel economy and smaller package. But, the peak power is much narrower, and unless you have a Contiuously Variable Transmission, a narrow peak power is not as functional for day-to-day usefulness.
A properly tuned LT1 can put out 500+ HP.
I have never heard of a turbo 4 cylinder having a "flatter power curve" than a modern V8. The V8 has a lot more HP at lower RPMS than the turbo 4 (hence more torque).
The only advantage of the STi engine is weight. On an aquatic vehicle, the extra torque of a V8 would not be of much help if it were 30ft below the surface, and diving fast.
First, the cable TV system in the US is a fairly new network, meaning that the infrastructure itself is generally of higher quality. This is what allows cable to offer speeds superior to DSL. Second, a cable signal, being a much more powerful signal than DSL, and nearly always running on shielded lines, doesn't deteriorate near as badly over distance.
No, the age of the system has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of design purpose: for phone service, all that was needed was a bidirectional channel of 8KHz. For cable, you needed significantly more BW, but in one direction. If the phone system had be designed with the BW of cable, then POTS would cost vastly more than it does.
Ok.
So what do you do with these, anyway? Make a fiber-optic transformer? What will the impact be on incident light? Will it have any interesting optical effects to the naked eye?
Yeah - there's a lot of 'funny' reactions to that. Personally, I wouldn't mind pissing on your lunch to see your 'funny' reaction. The only good thing about asshats such as this coward was when you were able to take them down. They'd always slink away, leaving a stain on battlenet.
I hope you pick up a 2^n++ month ban each time you are banned. Not that you would learn a lesson or anything, but to at least make battlenet more enjoyable.
But I bet more than a few of the republicans who accessed the open files are probabably ones that have recommended long prison terms for 'hackers'.
And I really hope that This Manual Miranda wasn't the Chief Judicial Nominee...
So... is Bush's lie about Yellow Cake more severe, in you opinion? Why or why not?
Perhaps get two cell phones, and alternate use randomly. And the phone that you're not using you could put in your spouse's car for the day, so it looks like it is moving around too. And simply set up call forwarding on the unused phone so you don't miss calls. Not perfect, but it does make it a little more difficult for people to track you (for the paranoid amoung us).
You know - my main goal in my life is to have left the world a slightly bit better for me being here. I don't know how I'm doing (there is no place to check your score), but I know for a fact I'm not f'en it up as much as a lot of people (e.g. Congress).
Oh well.
I'm not sure if you watched both versions of FOTR, but based on that alone I'm willing to sign a petition. Watching the theatrical release with the stupid stair-jumping in Moria annoyed me to no end. When I watched the extended version there were so many other scenes which added to story so much more than the stupid stair-jumping scenes. At that point, I viewed Peter Jackson's judgement as lame.
Do you get wetter walking or running from point A to B in the rain? OK, let's make some key assumptions:
The amount of rain falling is constant and is equal between point A and B. Wind is not a factor. Assume that the rain drops are at critical velocity. You move through the path at a constant velocity.
Now, imagine freezing time - with all of the raindrops fixed in place. The rain that would hit you in 3s is maybe 100 feet up, while the the rain that hits you in 6 sec is 200 feet up. So, you simply convert the amount of time it takes to traverse A to B, and convert that to the vertical distance of the rain drops that would hit you when you get to point B. Then, you can simply use C^2 = A^2 + B^2, where A is the path length and B corresponds to the amount of time (rain height). So minimizing the C, total path length in the rain reduces how wet you get. Even if you moved at near-infinite speed, you would still get wet in the rain, but not as wet as someone who never moved.