First off, is the SACD layer independent from the red-book layer? Or does the new layer just add bits beyond what the red-book layer can hold?
Secondly, if they are independent, and you're comparing CD and SACD, how do you know they've been mixed the same?
Someone needs to get the digital SACD stream off this sampler disk, resample it down to 44 KHz 18 bit stereo, and burn it to a standard CD, and see if there's a real difference.
Otherwise, what will eventually happen is the record labels will put lousy mixes on the CD layer, and vibrant mixes on SACD, and if you complain about the sound quality they'll simply tell you SACD is better.
Building a compost heap is an annoying piece of work; and you have to tend the thing, stirring it up. They make a rolling composter that, instead of having to dig and churn all that smelly stuff, you just roll the bin around to mix it.
AT&T was planning on doing this in a big way, building huge amounts of infrastructure for the task. POTS really doesn't have the bandwidth to carry the same number of channels as coax; instead, the line would only be used to carry a few channels, which would be switched at the central office. It would have been a massive video-on-demand service with TiVo-like capabilities.
If I remember correctly, AT&T dropped their plans or put them on ice when the FCC decided cable companies had to allow other ISPs to sell their service over the cable lines. A similar ruling against the new POTS-carrier service would have made the investment unprofitable, and AT&T was waiting to see what would happen.
Well, they're looking for a VGA monitor; I assume they're using a computer to drive it. So why not replace both computer and display with a notebook PC?
Any particular reason you don't use a laptop/notebook PC? The whole thing is already battery powered and highly efficient, with an LCD monitor. You admittedly might have problems prototyping connections for high-speed data; I don't know what's available for, say, easy-prototyping USB connections. PCMCIA would probably be even more difficult. If it's lower speed, using the serial or parallel port would be trivial.
Well, it would move the dissipation of tidal energies from around the ocean floor to electrical loads, but again, the amount of energy sapped would be pretty darn small.
I've seen an alternative method that uses a single, slanted tube rather than the horizontal/vertical one you suggest; this allows for more air movement per given difference in tide/wave height.
Okay, installed the beta drivers, and it STILL doesn't do what I need it to.
Why can't it save position properly? I want it to start up MIRC and ICQ on monitor 2; why won't it work? I could do it on that stupid ATI card... I assume it's because ATI treated my desktop like one big monitor.
I'm running a nVidia-based dual-headed system and have been greatly disappointed with its performance. I used to run an ATI system which was completely awful; the drivers were so badly kludged they disrupted my system's operation. nVidia's drivers are much more stable, thankfully, but ATI's were able to do so much more...
When I read the review, however, they showed a snapshot of nVidia's nView Desktop Manager control panel, and it has a LOT more options than mine, including playing with individual application settings... All the features I've been missing. Wow, I figured, I must be using an old driver package. Updated it... And the window hasn't changed.
Is there a separate upgrade package for the nView drivers?
The first popular peer-to-peer decentralized network, Gnutella, attempted to address the problem of port blocking by allowing any port to be used; this helped in some cases, but because default port numbers were assigned, port blocking was still able to severely disrupt the network. Assigning a random port on installation might solve this problem, but could cause others...
Gnutella also has problems in that it is TOO centralized. Jumpstarting a connection onto the network, when one's host cache is empty, is problematic. Some software writers attempted to solve the problem by providing host caches, nodes that simply share live connection points, but these caches became targets for lawsuits. There are a few alternate methods for looking up live nodes, but any such method is also susceptible to being shut down.
The conclusion? If someone has control over your network connection, it's really difficult keeping them from exerting that control. Anything that succeeds will have to be enormously fluid.
This looks like a great application for the digital ink technology, where small spheres rotate from dark to light sides depending on (I believe it was) electrostatic charges. The result would be a non-luminous keyboard with high-contrast lettering.
The record companies are complaining about dropping sales... Well, what do you think will happen when buying a CD is like spinning a roulette wheel, and you can't be sure it'll play on your stereo, much less your computer? Will people be willing to pay money for discs that may or may not work, and for which they probably won't be allowed to return if it doesn't?
They're shooting at thieves, but hitting themselves in the foot.
I had to help out a lame-brained friend who tried to build their own system, and then discovered it wouldn't work properly. Crashed sporadically, yada yada.
The problem? He'd screwed one corner of the motherboard into the backplane with no post. Direct contact, warping the board. I was extremely surprised the board survived after being remounted.
You do know, the larger you build the thing, the less likely you'll ever get it launched. If you can build it tiny and light, you may actually get a shot at it. If it's going to be small, then you ought to be able to build it in a glove box. Take the money you'd have to spend on a clean room and use it to help miniaturize the thing.
1034, 1035, 2090, 2091 and 5000 -- aren't those all in the dynamic address range? Wouldn't blocking those ports cause sporadic communications failures in programs such as web browsers?
I think per-email limits are VERY useful. If the email server account limits a user's space to a certain amount, and someone sends that user an email that fills it to the brim, the result will be a lot of bounced mail 'til the user retrieves his mail.
First off, the hard drive is likely to be the weakest link in your setup; making two separate processors depend on the same drive won't give you a lot of redundancy for your money.
Secondly, when the primary machine goes down, it may take cached disk information with it, so your secondary system will need to perform a fsck before mounting the drive, and the lag time probably won't help your situation.
What I would recommend is two separate systems, each with its own IDE (or SCSI) drive, and a gigabit network adapter in each machine. (I'd recommend using this as a secondary to your uplink ports, to make security easier and keep the bandwidth open.) Have the primary machine mount the secondary's drive over the network and mirror everything as it's written.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard there was this weird rich couple interested in it; something about a crystal hidden in the spine?
Yup, the bluest of the blue-nose Linux distributions is Red Hat. They have the largest support structure out there.
I thought they released a draft for DOOM 2.
Yeah, considering how long ago it was released, the draft for it would be just about due...
Are you sure? I thought red book audio specified 18 bits, and that most computers ignored the LSBs.
First off, is the SACD layer independent from the red-book layer? Or does the new layer just add bits beyond what the red-book layer can hold?
Secondly, if they are independent, and you're comparing CD and SACD, how do you know they've been mixed the same?
Someone needs to get the digital SACD stream off this sampler disk, resample it down to 44 KHz 18 bit stereo, and burn it to a standard CD, and see if there's a real difference.
Otherwise, what will eventually happen is the record labels will put lousy mixes on the CD layer, and vibrant mixes on SACD, and if you complain about the sound quality they'll simply tell you SACD is better.
Building a compost heap is an annoying piece of work; and you have to tend the thing, stirring it up. They make a rolling composter that, instead of having to dig and churn all that smelly stuff, you just roll the bin around to mix it.
AT&T was planning on doing this in a big way, building huge amounts of infrastructure for the task. POTS really doesn't have the bandwidth to carry the same number of channels as coax; instead, the line would only be used to carry a few channels, which would be switched at the central office. It would have been a massive video-on-demand service with TiVo-like capabilities.
If I remember correctly, AT&T dropped their plans or put them on ice when the FCC decided cable companies had to allow other ISPs to sell their service over the cable lines. A similar ruling against the new POTS-carrier service would have made the investment unprofitable, and AT&T was waiting to see what would happen.
Well, they're looking for a VGA monitor; I assume they're using a computer to drive it. So why not replace both computer and display with a notebook PC?
Any particular reason you don't use a laptop/notebook PC? The whole thing is already battery powered and highly efficient, with an LCD monitor. You admittedly might have problems prototyping connections for high-speed data; I don't know what's available for, say, easy-prototyping USB connections. PCMCIA would probably be even more difficult. If it's lower speed, using the serial or parallel port would be trivial.
Well, it would move the dissipation of tidal energies from around the ocean floor to electrical loads, but again, the amount of energy sapped would be pretty darn small.
I've seen an alternative method that uses a single, slanted tube rather than the horizontal/vertical one you suggest; this allows for more air movement per given difference in tide/wave height.
Enough turbines to power the US many times over would barely affect ocean currents. The amount of available energy is staggering.
Okay, installed the beta drivers, and it STILL doesn't do what I need it to.
Why can't it save position properly? I want it to start up MIRC and ICQ on monitor 2; why won't it work? I could do it on that stupid ATI card... I assume it's because ATI treated my desktop like one big monitor.
> Since j.root-servers.net will continue to answer at
> the old address, no one will notice the change.
Wouldn't that mean you could STILL DDoS both A and J at the same time?
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=winxp-2k_archive
Shows the latest signed driver (3.0.8.2) and the new drivers up to 4.0.7.2, with nView v.2.0.
I'm running a nVidia-based dual-headed system and have been greatly disappointed with its performance. I used to run an ATI system which was completely awful; the drivers were so badly kludged they disrupted my system's operation. nVidia's drivers are much more stable, thankfully, but ATI's were able to do so much more...
When I read the review, however, they showed a snapshot of nVidia's nView Desktop Manager control panel, and it has a LOT more options than mine, including playing with individual application settings... All the features I've been missing. Wow, I figured, I must be using an old driver package. Updated it... And the window hasn't changed.
Is there a separate upgrade package for the nView drivers?
The first popular peer-to-peer decentralized network, Gnutella, attempted to address the problem of port blocking by allowing any port to be used; this helped in some cases, but because default port numbers were assigned, port blocking was still able to severely disrupt the network. Assigning a random port on installation might solve this problem, but could cause others...
Gnutella also has problems in that it is TOO centralized. Jumpstarting a connection onto the network, when one's host cache is empty, is problematic. Some software writers attempted to solve the problem by providing host caches, nodes that simply share live connection points, but these caches became targets for lawsuits. There are a few alternate methods for looking up live nodes, but any such method is also susceptible to being shut down.
The conclusion? If someone has control over your network connection, it's really difficult keeping them from exerting that control. Anything that succeeds will have to be enormously fluid.
This looks like a great application for the digital ink technology, where small spheres rotate from dark to light sides depending on (I believe it was) electrostatic charges. The result would be a non-luminous keyboard with high-contrast lettering.
The record companies are complaining about dropping sales... Well, what do you think will happen when buying a CD is like spinning a roulette wheel, and you can't be sure it'll play on your stereo, much less your computer? Will people be willing to pay money for discs that may or may not work, and for which they probably won't be allowed to return if it doesn't?
They're shooting at thieves, but hitting themselves in the foot.
I had to help out a lame-brained friend who tried to build their own system, and then discovered it wouldn't work properly. Crashed sporadically, yada yada.
The problem? He'd screwed one corner of the motherboard into the backplane with no post. Direct contact, warping the board. I was extremely surprised the board survived after being remounted.
Uhm. Go look up the term "glove box".
You do know, the larger you build the thing, the less likely you'll ever get it launched. If you can build it tiny and light, you may actually get a shot at it. If it's going to be small, then you ought to be able to build it in a glove box. Take the money you'd have to spend on a clean room and use it to help miniaturize the thing.
1034, 1035, 2090, 2091 and 5000 -- aren't those all in the dynamic address range? Wouldn't blocking those ports cause sporadic communications failures in programs such as web browsers?
I think per-email limits are VERY useful. If the email server account limits a user's space to a certain amount, and someone sends that user an email that fills it to the brim, the result will be a lot of bounced mail 'til the user retrieves his mail.
First off, the hard drive is likely to be the weakest link in your setup; making two separate processors depend on the same drive won't give you a lot of redundancy for your money.
Secondly, when the primary machine goes down, it may take cached disk information with it, so your secondary system will need to perform a fsck before mounting the drive, and the lag time probably won't help your situation.
What I would recommend is two separate systems, each with its own IDE (or SCSI) drive, and a gigabit network adapter in each machine. (I'd recommend using this as a secondary to your uplink ports, to make security easier and keep the bandwidth open.) Have the primary machine mount the secondary's drive over the network and mirror everything as it's written.