Arkeia is another (IMNSHO) good option. Small unobtrusive client, good control on the server, fairly cross platform capable, reasonable licencing terms.
Just curious... How many strands are there in an "average" cross-oceanic fiber run?
One of three (well, two if you don't count spurrs) hooking Alaska to the rest of the U.S. (1,995 undersea miles) only has 4 strands, and it's designed such that "Each fiber pair can be upgraded to OC-192 by adding shore-based electronics without changing the wet plant."
How much (theoretical) trans-continental bandwith is there?
"Since the movie was being projected on film on another McClurg screen...I slipped upstairs, watched a scene on film and then hurried downstairs to compare the same scene on video. The difference was dramatic: more detail, more depth, more clarity.
Readers familiar with my preference for film over video projection systems will wonder if I have switched parties. Not at all. It's to be expected that "Episode II" would look better on digital, because it was entirely filmed on digital. Therefore, the digitally projected version is generation one, and the film version is one generation further from the source. Lucas is right as far as a computer-aided special-effects movie like "Episode II" goes, but may be wrong for the vast majority of movies that depict the real world on celluloid."
The same thing would apply for Monsters Inc. as it is a digitally created work. Do the same test with a "real life" film (Insomnia for example) and see how the picture quality matches.
Yes with digital you get rid of the "jitter" and the dirt and scratches. But at what cost to the image quality and color depth?
For those who haven't been inside a theatre projection room in the last little bit, these 'reels' are actually complex turntable systems that cost thousands to maintain.
The most prone-to-failure bit on any projector is the bulb. You need a REALLY high output bulb to make a visible image on a large screen. That is not going to change from film to digital, and is not likely to get much cheaper.
The reels are not really that complex. The film path through the camera (and sound reading equipment) is where the complecity comes in. It's quite facinating, really. For those reading this message, you should see if you can take a tour of the projection booth at your local theatre.
I was a projectionist for about three years. The projectors we used were over 20 years old. Aside from a few $2.00 micro switches (on the platters) dying, and a couple of roller bearings seizing (film path guides), and the obvious Xenon buld needing replacement there where zero projection failures. They paid the "head prjectionist" (who was responsible for prjector maintainance) less than $30,000 per year. And that included working 25 hours a week running the projectors.
YMMV. I do feel that digital's maintainance costs will be lower... At this time, it's the early adoption period of new technology. Think about digital projectors as being the new GeForce 4 XP (whatever the new one is) video card of the Theatre business. The early adopters will pay out the nose to be the first kids on the block with the cool toys.
...it lowers the bar for theatre ownership and therefore, control of theatre revenue.
What? What does theatre ownership have to do with controlling revenue? They Hollywood moguls control revenue by controlling distribution. It has nothing to do with theatre ownership. If you can pay, you can play.
"Since the movie was being projected on film on another McClurg screen...I slipped upstairs, watched a scene on film and then hurried downstairs to compare the same scene on video. The difference was dramatic: more detail, more depth, more clarity.
Readers familiar with my preference for film over video projection systems will wonder if I have switched parties. Not at all. It's to be expected that "Episode II" would look better on digital, because it was entirely filmed on digital. Therefore, the digitally projected version is generation one, and the film version is one generation further from the source. Lucas is right as far as a computer-aided special-effects movie like "Episode II" goes, but may be wrong for the vast majority of movies that depict the real world on celluloid.
[...]
My feeling is that movies shot on digital video look better projected on video, and that movies shot on film look better projected on film."
Love him or hate him, he is a famous voice in the movie review business. Here he says "Digital images contain less information than 35mm film images, and the more you test their limits, the more you see that."
I have read (in another of his reviews that I can't find now) that movies that are "filmed" (vs. digitally recorded) look better on film, where as digitally recorded movies look better on digital projectors (duh). He also stated that film seems more suited for real life (vs. digital recording) where as digital projection is better for digitally created works (much of Clones, Monsters Inc., etc.).
A lot of us have jobs that require us to have an active connection to the net.
So get your job to pay for it. Work pays for my desk, my computer, my lighting, my heat, my phone... All requirments that must be met for most people to work for a company. If your job requires you to have internet access, make them pay for it. Duh.
Option 2 is not the only option that will keep a company afloat. I happen to work for a company that is offering broadband under an "option 1" scheme, and let me tell you, demand is high, and margin is very healthy.
There are complainers that bemone the fact that they have a b/w limit, but they are more than welcome to order a leased line.
We don't need better weapons, we somehow need better people.
I find this concept interesting. Are humans inherently flawed? Where does this flaw originate. At some point in our ~ 3 million year existance, we just (out of the blue) grew flaws?
Think about it. Doesn't that strike you as just a little bit odd? Me neither. Until I read a short essay on the origins of our agricultural society.
Take three minutes, read the essay. It might change your perception of where the flaws lie.
It was said that we'd see [Nintendo GameCubes] at around the one-fifty mark, but who knows if they'll be satisfied with a fifty dollar difference between themselves and their competitors, which cuts their prior advantage in half. You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see 'Cubes sell at one-fifty or one-seventy-five, and include a GameBoy Advance with that little cable thingy that hooks them together. I mean, I'm just talking. I have no idea if something like that would even be feasible, but it seems like a fantastic way to differentiate themselves.
Perhaps it was just a good idea that multiple people came up with simultaniously. Perhaps "Tycho" stole your idea. Who am I to say?
In a properly set up film projector, the film should also scroll without blurring.
There is (effectively) a fan blade whirring between the xenon bulb and the film gate which causes the light to flash 48 times/sec (twice per frame). Every other flicker the frame is changed. There should be no blurring. Unless, of course the film is moving while light is shining through it. That makes for a "ghosting" image.
Personally, I can't wait for the end of film. I'm no longer a projectionist though.;o)
The caveman was perfectly willing to live off the spoils of the land. What good is more land, after all? It's only when you need more land to grow more crops to feed your increasing population that the "elimination of everything in your way" becomes important.
How many different tribes of Native Americans are (were) there? Why wasn't there only one? Because they lived off the spoils of the land, and had no reason to eliminate their neighbors. Pick any tribal culture that lives off the land. You'll find the same cultural diversity living in relative peace.
Sure they had skirmishes. If you don't keep your neighbors off balance, they might think you are weak.
It's not caveman nature. They were far less violent than us. It was only with the agricultural revolution that humans decided there is "one right way to live".
Daniel Quinn has some pretty interesting books on where (he belives) we came from, and where we are headed. One of my personal favorite articles (actually the transcript of a speech) is here.
I don't think that it's humans in general. If it was, we wouldn't be here, as we would have wiped ourselves out eons ago.
More it's our society. We encourage conformity, and discourage diveristy. This idea is not new, and certainly I did not orignate it, but I am doing my part to spread it.
The "tuh-tuh-tuh-tuh" sound you hear is likely not a gate opening and closing. The light flicker is done using (effectively) a fan blade. The sound is the rollers moving the film across the apperture. The film has to stop over the appature (so you don't get a blurry frame). This stop-and-go is what makes most of the projector noise.
If I misunderstood what you were referring to as a "gate", I appologize.
As to the flicker, that is most often attributable to a nearly worn out Xenon bulb. The older they get, the less even their light output is.
Personally, I can't wait for the end of film. I'm no longer a projectionist though.;o)
I do, and I'm typing on it right now. I had a problem (over a year ago) with the PS/2 ports locking up on boot, which prevented the computer from reliably booting.
As part of the over-the-phone trouble shooting steps where to remove the cover, and reseat the CPU and memory.
Personally, I have never had a very high opinion of tech support (as a whole, there are certainly exceptions), but I Gateway's service to be knowledegable and helpful.
Perhaps Gateway will turn into a draconian drain on creativity, but for the time being they seem to be interested in taking the path less traveled.
A T1 line runs at ~1.544Mb/sec and is capable of carrying 24 voice lines. 1.544MB/sec divided by 24 gives ~66Kb/sec per line. Add 20% in for overhead and you get ~79Kb/sec.
But that's just a rough guess. Personally, I like this answer better.
Slashdot Mirror
Arkeia is another (IMNSHO) good option. Small unobtrusive client, good control on the server, fairly cross platform capable, reasonable licencing terms.
Such as the fact that this project has been underway for over a year (the article is dated last year, and states
and the bit that I was looking for
I can't imagine that number has changed too much in the past year.
Just curious... How many strands are there in an "average" cross-oceanic fiber run?
One of three (well, two if you don't count spurrs) hooking Alaska to the rest of the U.S. (1,995 undersea miles) only has 4 strands, and it's designed such that "Each fiber pair can be upgraded to OC-192 by adding shore-based electronics without changing the wet plant."
How much (theoretical) trans-continental bandwith is there?
In Roger Ebert's opinion (re: AotC on digital vs film):
The same thing would apply for Monsters Inc. as it is a digitally created work. Do the same test with a "real life" film (Insomnia for example) and see how the picture quality matches.
Yes with digital you get rid of the "jitter" and the dirt and scratches. But at what cost to the image quality and color depth?
The most prone-to-failure bit on any projector is the bulb. You need a REALLY high output bulb to make a visible image on a large screen. That is not going to change from film to digital, and is not likely to get much cheaper.
The reels are not really that complex. The film path through the camera (and sound reading equipment) is where the complecity comes in. It's quite facinating, really. For those reading this message, you should see if you can take a tour of the projection booth at your local theatre.
I was a projectionist for about three years. The projectors we used were over 20 years old. Aside from a few $2.00 micro switches (on the platters) dying, and a couple of roller bearings seizing (film path guides), and the obvious Xenon buld needing replacement there where zero projection failures. They paid the "head prjectionist" (who was responsible for prjector maintainance) less than $30,000 per year. And that included working 25 hours a week running the projectors.
YMMV. I do feel that digital's maintainance costs will be lower... At this time, it's the early adoption period of new technology. Think about digital projectors as being the new GeForce 4 XP (whatever the new one is) video card of the Theatre business. The early adopters will pay out the nose to be the first kids on the block with the cool toys.
What? What does theatre ownership have to do with controlling revenue? They Hollywood moguls control revenue by controlling distribution. It has nothing to do with theatre ownership. If you can pay, you can play.
Here it is...
"Since the movie was being projected on film on another McClurg screen...I slipped upstairs, watched a scene on film and then hurried downstairs to compare the same scene on video. The difference was dramatic: more detail, more depth, more clarity.
Readers familiar with my preference for film over video projection systems will wonder if I have switched parties. Not at all. It's to be expected that "Episode II" would look better on digital, because it was entirely filmed on digital. Therefore, the digitally projected version is generation one, and the film version is one generation further from the source. Lucas is right as far as a computer-aided special-effects movie like "Episode II" goes, but may be wrong for the vast majority of movies that depict the real world on celluloid.
[...]
My feeling is that movies shot on digital video look better projected on video, and that movies shot on film look better projected on film."
Love him or hate him, he is a famous voice in the movie review business. Here he says "Digital images contain less information than 35mm film images, and the more you test their limits, the more you see that."
I have read (in another of his reviews that I can't find now) that movies that are "filmed" (vs. digitally recorded) look better on film, where as digitally recorded movies look better on digital projectors (duh). He also stated that film seems more suited for real life (vs. digital recording) where as digital projection is better for digitally created works (much of Clones, Monsters Inc., etc.).
Wish I could find that commentary...
I wonder what the shipping charges are going to be...
Interestingly enough, the google translation page does this. Translate a page, and any links on that page lead to translated pages. Very convenient.
So get your job to pay for it. Work pays for my desk, my computer, my lighting, my heat, my phone... All requirments that must be met for most people to work for a company. If your job requires you to have internet access, make them pay for it. Duh.
Let me get this straight. You are buying internet access? Where the hell do you keep it? In the garage next to your car?
Try again.
If you and I both consign a company to supply me a service (say electricity), and I use 3x as much electricity as you, should I pay more?
The car in your example is equivalent to your computer. If you use that three times as much, you don't pay anymore.
Option 2 is not the only option that will keep a company afloat. I happen to work for a company that is offering broadband under an "option 1" scheme, and let me tell you, demand is high, and margin is very healthy.
There are complainers that bemone the fact that they have a b/w limit, but they are more than welcome to order a leased line.
I find this concept interesting. Are humans inherently flawed? Where does this flaw originate. At some point in our ~ 3 million year existance, we just (out of the blue) grew flaws?
Think about it. Doesn't that strike you as just a little bit odd? Me neither. Until I read a short essay on the origins of our agricultural society.
Take three minutes, read the essay. It might change your perception of where the flaws lie.
And I quote:
Perhaps it was just a good idea that multiple people came up with simultaniously. Perhaps "Tycho" stole your idea. Who am I to say?
In a properly set up film projector, the film should also scroll without blurring.
;o)
There is (effectively) a fan blade whirring between the xenon bulb and the film gate which causes the light to flash 48 times/sec (twice per frame). Every other flicker the frame is changed. There should be no blurring. Unless, of course the film is moving while light is shining through it. That makes for a "ghosting" image.
Personally, I can't wait for the end of film. I'm no longer a projectionist though.
It's agraculturist nature.
The caveman was perfectly willing to live off the spoils of the land. What good is more land, after all? It's only when you need more land to grow more crops to feed your increasing population that the "elimination of everything in your way" becomes important.
How many different tribes of Native Americans are (were) there? Why wasn't there only one? Because they lived off the spoils of the land, and had no reason to eliminate their neighbors. Pick any tribal culture that lives off the land. You'll find the same cultural diversity living in relative peace.
Sure they had skirmishes. If you don't keep your neighbors off balance, they might think you are weak.
It's not caveman nature. They were far less violent than us. It was only with the agricultural revolution that humans decided there is "one right way to live".
Daniel Quinn has some pretty interesting books on where (he belives) we came from, and where we are headed. One of my personal favorite articles (actually the transcript of a speech) is here.
I don't think that it's humans in general. If it was, we wouldn't be here, as we would have wiped ourselves out eons ago.
More it's our society. We encourage conformity, and discourage diveristy. This idea is not new, and certainly I did not orignate it, but I am doing my part to spread it.
Read it with an open mind. Pass it on if you find it insightful.
It's not on the FUCKING ROOT.
Dumbass
As to the flicker, that is most often attributable...
Most often. Not always. Some people are better able to perceive 48 flashes of light per second (two flashes per frame).
Maybe you are just gifted.
Call me picky...
;o)
The "tuh-tuh-tuh-tuh" sound you hear is likely not a gate opening and closing. The light flicker is done using (effectively) a fan blade. The sound is the rollers moving the film across the apperture. The film has to stop over the appature (so you don't get a blurry frame). This stop-and-go is what makes most of the projector noise.
If I misunderstood what you were referring to as a "gate", I appologize.
As to the flicker, that is most often attributable to a nearly worn out Xenon bulb. The older they get, the less even their light output is.
Personally, I can't wait for the end of film. I'm no longer a projectionist though.
You obviously don't own a Gateway.
I do, and I'm typing on it right now. I had a problem (over a year ago) with the PS/2 ports locking up on boot, which prevented the computer from reliably booting.
As part of the over-the-phone trouble shooting steps where to remove the cover, and reseat the CPU and memory.
Personally, I have never had a very high opinion of tech support (as a whole, there are certainly exceptions), but I Gateway's service to be knowledegable and helpful.
Perhaps Gateway will turn into a draconian drain on creativity, but for the time being they seem to be interested in taking the path less traveled.
Yes, I am serious...
Okay, fine. Take the "copied" code out of his assignment. Hence the program will not compile, and will not work. Give him an "F" on the assignment.
Loosing credit for a complete course just seems etirely too harsh to me.
But it's an interesting article all the same.
Essay on UNschooling.
Worst case: 200 lines of code (hundreds). 30 / 200 =
But that's just me.
Quick bit of math...
A T1 line runs at ~1.544Mb/sec and is capable of carrying 24 voice lines. 1.544MB/sec divided by 24 gives ~66Kb/sec per line. Add 20% in for overhead and you get ~79Kb/sec.
But that's just a rough guess. Personally, I like this answer better.