I can't wait for someone to start making filters for these that skip over everything but the "objectionable" content...
Re:A threat to be taken seriously
on
Potato Bazookas
·
· Score: 1
Indeed he should, and obviously the country needs to spend a few trillion developing the STDI (Strategic Tuber Defence Initiative).
The *real* source of the problem
on
Potato Bazookas
·
· Score: 1, Funny
And why is it they're not talking about stopping the supply of ammo? Surely no young person would have any legitimate (ie non-projectile) use for a potato, so they should clearly limit the sale of these at such covert arms markets as "grocery stores". They should be burning the fields of the potato growers to stop this tuberic menace to society!
No, but I did have a 133 5x86 and had the case's "turbo" button across a jumper block on the motherboard that would allow switching from 33 to 40 megahertz bus speed. The reason was that, on this MB at least, if you turned it on with a 40mhz speed it would indeed have the CPU at 160, but would put the PCI bus at 20mhz. By turning it on and then pressing the button to go from 133->160 it would put the PCI bus at 40mhz, and that resulted in a pretty big difference.
This has been slightly-related comment story time with Dan
I'm not so sure this is a good thing. My multimonitor/multicard setup works fine under the latest Linux drivers, but doesn't work under the latest Win2K drivers. I have to keep using 30.82 under Win2K. I'd report the problem, but they seem to offer no support for the Detonator drivers at all. Any nvidia people out there?
This is exactly what I was thinking. I could see this working for relatively static screens like you'd have with web browsing or typical business apps, but I can't imagine this working well for games or watching videos...
NOTE: With nView, the two displays have to be beside each other under X.
This caused me to look at using multiple cards instead of multiple headed cards.
I have one 21" and two 17" monitors, and I wanted the primary display (21", middle, AGP) to be able to be upgraded seperately from the secondaries (PCI, one on either side of the primary), as I have no interest in spanning 3D games across screens. Granted, I could have done three with the Matrox card, but then I'd always have to upgrade to another 3-monitor card. The solution I went with was to have one nVidia AGP card for the primary (currently a TNT2 Ultra, to be upgraded later) and two GForce 2 PCI cards for the secondaries. The GF2s are plenty fast for 2D, and fast enough to run small 3D accelerated toys/apps/screensavers too. The only downsides are the use of more expansion slots than using a dual-headed card and that 3D acceleration won't span. The upsides are that each one is running full speed, they're completely independant so multiple resolutions/frequencies is less of a problem, and the primary display can be upgraded seperately from the secondaries. I believe I could also run seperate X servers on each card if that ever became useful.
So if you want spanning 3D acceleration or are low on expansion slots, go with a multihead card. Otherwise, think about doing it this way.
OK, so there isn't a lot of real content in this post, but I thought I'd share a setup success story. When doing multi-card multi-head systems I'd *highly* recommend sticking with the same chip line/maker, and I'd just as highly recommend it be nVidia. Getting these three cards working together couldn't have been simpler...
I was going to nominate you to be the Linux development head based on your WheatoniX work. It seems, however, that you suffer from RMSesque "ego stroking" (as Linus would put it) tendencies. Linus clearly doesn't approve of that.
I knew it was only a matter of time before Microsoft realized it didn't need HTTP anymore. Granted, that isn't *exactly* what this article is talking about, but I think they're just warming up. If you read carefully, they're not just attacking HTTP as an RPC transport, but HTTP because it is an RPC protocol.
Why bother with HTTP, FTP, SMTP, POP, IMAP, etc when they control most of the clients and almost half the servers on the Internet. They could replace all those with their own set of protocols or, more likely, a single MS-specific protocol. They say they're already working on some new RPC solution right here in this article. It isn't too hard to imagine them introducing this WindowsProtocol on the server and in some beta of MSIE. Then MSIE starts to try to use WindowsProtocol for any network communications before falling back to the standard protocols. In 3-5 years when they're up to 60% or 70% of the server market, server side Windows has an option that is default "on" that disables non-WindowsProtocol connections and client-side Windows starts asking the user if they want to enable connections to "legacy" services, while warning them that it isn't Microsoft so it can't be good. After that, who would run a server that can't accept connections from 90% of consumer computers?
Of course I don't want this to happen, but what's to stop them? I doubt the <5% of us that realize its wrong will be able to.
Slashdot Mirror
mod parent poor taste
i can't believe slashdot sometimes
I can't wait for someone to start making filters for these that skip over everything but the "objectionable" content...
Indeed he should, and obviously the country needs to spend a few trillion developing the STDI (Strategic Tuber Defence Initiative).
And why is it they're not talking about stopping the supply of ammo? Surely no young person would have any legitimate (ie non-projectile) use for a potato, so they should clearly limit the sale of these at such covert arms markets as "grocery stores". They should be burning the fields of the potato growers to stop this tuberic menace to society!
I don't consider this a win for anyone or against Microsoft, but I do consider it HILARIOUS!
How is this "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that matters"?
Well, unless you have a computer that has multiple physical CPUs.
No, but I did have a 133 5x86 and had the case's "turbo" button across a jumper block on the motherboard that would allow switching from 33 to 40 megahertz bus speed. The reason was that, on this MB at least, if you turned it on with a 40mhz speed it would indeed have the CPU at 160, but would put the PCI bus at 20mhz. By turning it on and then pressing the button to go from 133->160 it would put the PCI bus at 40mhz, and that resulted in a pretty big difference.
This has been slightly-related comment story time with Dan
The question is whether we had the right to hear the sound of the tree falling...
I'm not so sure this is a good thing. My multimonitor/multicard setup works fine under the latest Linux drivers, but doesn't work under the latest Win2K drivers. I have to keep using 30.82 under Win2K. I'd report the problem, but they seem to offer no support for the Detonator drivers at all. Any nvidia people out there?
First quantum!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I could see this working for relatively static screens like you'd have with web browsing or typical business apps, but I can't imagine this working well for games or watching videos...
Only one? I think three fingers is more effective...
NOTE: With nView, the two displays have to be beside each other under X.
This caused me to look at using multiple cards instead of multiple headed cards.
I have one 21" and two 17" monitors, and I wanted the primary display (21", middle, AGP) to be able to be upgraded seperately from the secondaries (PCI, one on either side of the primary), as I have no interest in spanning 3D games across screens. Granted, I could have done three with the Matrox card, but then I'd always have to upgrade to another 3-monitor card. The solution I went with was to have one nVidia AGP card for the primary (currently a TNT2 Ultra, to be upgraded later) and two GForce 2 PCI cards for the secondaries. The GF2s are plenty fast for 2D, and fast enough to run small 3D accelerated toys/apps/screensavers too. The only downsides are the use of more expansion slots than using a dual-headed card and that 3D acceleration won't span. The upsides are that each one is running full speed, they're completely independant so multiple resolutions/frequencies is less of a problem, and the primary display can be upgraded seperately from the secondaries. I believe I could also run seperate X servers on each card if that ever became useful.
So if you want spanning 3D acceleration or are low on expansion slots, go with a multihead card. Otherwise, think about doing it this way.
OK, so there isn't a lot of real content in this post, but I thought I'd share a setup success story. When doing multi-card multi-head systems I'd *highly* recommend sticking with the same chip line/maker, and I'd just as highly recommend it be nVidia. Getting these three cards working together couldn't have been simpler...
True, but would he want the wrong name on his erronously early tombstone? I think not!
Another possibility is that the poster wasn't even talking about Tim Berners-Lee, but rather indicating that someone named Tim Bernard Lee has died.
Or something like that.
I also doubt that Tim Berners-Lee would like being called Tim Bernard Lee .
...I've said that many times
Unsafe in any configuration
...two words: DEPTH CHARGES
I was going to nominate you to be the Linux development head based on your WheatoniX work. It seems, however, that you suffer from RMSesque "ego stroking" (as Linus would put it) tendencies. Linus clearly doesn't approve of that.
Netscape 6 is PEOPLE!
Are there any web sites tracking/discussing this whole mess?
Interesting...
Do you use the ADVC-100 for output to TV as well?
Thanks.
--dan
...is that ICANN is there to serve the Internet, not control it.
I knew it was only a matter of time before Microsoft realized it didn't need HTTP anymore. Granted, that isn't *exactly* what this article is talking about, but I think they're just warming up. If you read carefully, they're not just attacking HTTP as an RPC transport, but HTTP because it is an RPC protocol.
Why bother with HTTP, FTP, SMTP, POP, IMAP, etc when they control most of the clients and almost half the servers on the Internet. They could replace all those with their own set of protocols or, more likely, a single MS-specific protocol. They say they're already working on some new RPC solution right here in this article. It isn't too hard to imagine them introducing this WindowsProtocol on the server and in some beta of MSIE. Then MSIE starts to try to use WindowsProtocol for any network communications before falling back to the standard protocols. In 3-5 years when they're up to 60% or 70% of the server market, server side Windows has an option that is default "on" that disables non-WindowsProtocol connections and client-side Windows starts asking the user if they want to enable connections to "legacy" services, while warning them that it isn't Microsoft so it can't be good. After that, who would run a server that can't accept connections from 90% of consumer computers?
Of course I don't want this to happen, but what's to stop them? I doubt the <5% of us that realize its wrong will be able to.