My experience over the years has been that hibernation/suspending either works or fails, but it does so reliably and consistently. If it works the first time you test it, it is likely to work just as well from there on out. It's generally just a matter of how well the hardware itself cooperates.
But the point was, this thread was about hibernation, but then you come in with a post about how long it takes you to login and get your tools opened. That has nothing to do with hibernation. It might have been relevant if hibernation randomly failed, but a) that hasn't been my experience, and b) you never mentioned such a scenario when you started talking about login times and such
Wait. So you are able to remote into your desktop from the WAN, but you don't have any servers on your network that could be access via SSH, or even a password protected website, in order to issue the WOL?
I'm not sure how it is pointless. I have a network in my household. It's been setup for years so that I can log into the server remotely, wake my desktop, and then do a remote connection to the desktop. I use it weekly, without issue. And thats what I've done in my hobby time. I'm sure an actual IT department can do at least as well.
Suspend to ram. Most machines can wake from it in under 10 seconds. Of course, your hardware and drivers have to support it, and do so in a stable manner (which isn't always the case)
Do you even realize how hiberation/suspending works? When you boot up, your system is in exactly the same state as when you booted/hibernated (assuming all the drivers and software cooperate). That means no more opening programs and file, logging in, mapping drives, etc. You might have to reopen some ssh sessions and stuff like that (if he server disconnected you), but otherwise there isn't much to be done.
Agreed. I tried to enable it recently on my wife's machine, but after it wakes up Firefox is in a state where it pauses ever 5 to 10 seconds. Restarting firefox doesn't fix it, either...only rebooting. Every other program works fine, and firefox works fine after suspending on my computer, so I don't believe it's firefox (or at most, some interaction between firefox and a driver or something), but I have no clue what causes it.
Interesting. So how does it take this air compressed to atmospheric pressure and use it to generate electricity (without using even more energy in the process)?
How do these work? The article wasn't completely clear. Where does it get it's supply of compressed air? The article mentions a motor to do the compress for higher speeds, which makes it sound like for lower speeds it would run off of air you fill it up with at the station. Is that correct? If so, that sounds pretty cool.
Otherwise, if all the compression were done in the car, I can't see how it would be even as efficient as a regular gas powered car (you know, thermodynamics and all that).
The guy saying "RTFA" was not talking to you, but the AC who claimed Phorm is opt-in, not opt-out.
In the AC's defense, though, the wikipedia article on Phorm says that UK Law requires it to be opt-in, and at least one ISP (TalkTalk) has implemented it in an opt-in manner. Other than that, though, it appears to be opt-out
they simply said if you were willing to pack up your CPU and ship it to us we will send you a replacement.
most folks caring about the FDIV bug enough to pull their CPU and wait for a return
FYI. I exchanged my P60 when that bug hit. You imply that you had to give up your processor for a few days, but that wasn't the case. They took a credit card number and placed a hold for the price of the processor. They then shipped you the new process, and you shipped back the old processor after swapping it out (and I believe return shipping was prepaid, but I'm not positive). If they didn't receive the old processor they would just make the charge against your credit card.
Couldn't be bothered to read the article? Check out page 7. It covers it in detail, but 1) no it doesn't fix anything 2) not all drives had problems in Bootcamp to begin with
I think you misunderstood. Your experience vs. mechanical drives has nothing to do with the issue. The AC said that the OCZ was faster than the Intel. Chris Daniel was simply saying "yes the OCZ is a bit faster for sequential acces, but random access (which is what most users experience the most) is better on the Intel"
If you look at Anand's article You will see that the OCZ beats the Intel slightly at sequential read (about 5%), and by a decent margin on sequential write (slightly less than 3x). However, these aren't things most users typically do...especially the writes. You are only likely to be doing that if you are working with editing large a/v files or something, and since large a/v files take up tons of space, a SSD probably isn't the best candidate for that anyway, given its current cost/storage metric. The OCZ might make sense working in a something like a professional AV editing environment, where you can copy the file off the server, work on it locally, and then copy it back to the server when done.
On the other hand, random reads and writes are something that virtually 100% of users experience on a regular basis, and this is where Intel really shines. On reads, Intel wins by a decent margin (slightly less than 2x the speed, and nearly half the latency). But then look at sequential writes, and Intel really takes the decisive win in that category. While the OCZ is a healthy 4x faster than Velociraptor, the Intel is just shy of 10x the performance of the OCZ (and thus nearly 40x the Velociraptor).
So, when you compare the Intel and the OCZ, the Intel loses slightly and decently on 2 operations that are less common, and it wins decently and decisively on 2 operations that are more common. Thus it's a pretty good stretch to try and say the OCZ is faster than the Intel.
Ummm, what you were discussing in that link has nothing to do with what this firmware is fixing. You were discussing performance decreases over time through ordinary use. This firmware fixes a bug that (so far) has only been able to be replicated under certain benchmark conditions, and has not yet appeared under real world conditions.
As AllynM mentioned, this fix addresses a different problem. If you read in that anandtech article, you will see this:
Intel's X25-M: Not So Adaptive Performance?
The Intel drive is in a constant quest to return to peak performance, that's what its controller is designed to do. The drive is constantly cleaning as it goes along to ensure its performance is as high as possible, for as long as possible. A recent PC Perspective investigation unearthed a scenario where the X25-M is unable to recover and is stuck at a significantly lower level of performance until the drive is secure erased once more.
There's not much I can say about the issue other than I've been working with Intel on it very closely and it's not something I'm overly concerned about at this point. I can replicate the PC Perspective data but not by using my machine normally. Through the right combination of benchmarks I can effectively put the drive in a poor performance state that it won't recover from without a secure erase. I should also mention that I can do the same to other drives as well.
Seriously? Wow, that's something I'd never expect from Nintendo. Besides, if the Wii Speak Channel is what I think it is (from what the name suggests), I'm assuming it's a rather pointless channel if you don't have the hardware (Wii Speak) to use it. You may install the channel on 3 Wiis (if they allowed you to, that is), but you can still only use it on the one Wii that you have Wii Speak hooked up to. Seems kind of pointless to be requiring online authorization for software that essentially already has a dongle.
That's nice that you have your own personal definition, but I think the definition that the market has accepted is that it's simply a smaller, lower end laptop with fewer options and features.
I swear, I'm sick of everyone who goes off about how Obama isn't change and that it's business as usual (or 100 other cute ways of phrasing it). It gets tiresome. He's already changed the stance on a number of issues, so I don't know how you people can keep up that attitude.
Are you people going to whine if he doesn't do 100% of what you want him to do? Guess what...no single person in this world (other than yourself) is going to agree with you on every issue and do everything you want.
Yes, Obama's already done some things I'm not too thrilled about, but I recognize that he's done a number of things that I am thrilled about. In fact, he's done more that I approve of than not. If you want to disagree with him on individual decisions or to say that you are unhappy overall, that's one thing. But when you act like he's no different than Bush every time he makes a decision you disagree with, you sound like a whiny kid crying "I'm NEVER gonna learn to ride a bike" just because you fell down a couple times.
a "netbook," as originally specified, should not even have a hard drive with which to install MS Office. It should be used to access "the cloud" and use google aps or the like to handle word processing and handle E-Mail via webmail
Yeah, and your desktop computer shouldn't be used to play games, either. It should be used to perform scientific calculations or process important business data or something. Welcome to the real world, where things find uses beyond their original intention. You may say netbooks shouldn't be used to do X, but when someone releases a netbook that CAN do X and people notice, your "should" and "shouldn't"s go right out the window.
What do I have (and by I, I'm just meaning any photographer in general)? Well, for one I've got an original file of that same image. Perhaps it contains slightly more resolution than the photo you've got (maybe it was downsampled, cropped, or modified in some other way). Perhaps it's in raw format, and that raw file can be converted (using the right settings) to generate the supplied art. The metadata in that file (camera, lens, focal length, focal distance, shutter speed, aperture, iso, capture time, etc) can be used to verify several things, like is the angle of shadows consistant with the time of day, is the depth of field consistant with what you'd get from the indicated lens+settings, etc. Of course, all of that could theoretically be reverse engineered from the photo, but it would take quite a bit of effort and be prone to error.
I then also have a couple other photos of the same scene from slightly different angles. I've got dozens (if not hundreds) of other images from the same location or event. Evidence like that would be MANY orders of magnitude more difficult to fake. If you could fake that, you'd have no need to steal images because you could obviously just fabricate any photo you'd like.
Of course, if that's not the nail in the coffin, then there is also the fact that I (hopefully) registered the photo with the copyright office prior to your first documented usage of the image. And barring that, maybe I've sold the image to some other company before your first documented usage, and they can be called on to testify to that.
In short, even in the film days, an original negative was the least of the evidence a photographer had to prove his ownership, and in the age of digital photography, that same evidence is still every bit as useful.
It says the containers were placed behind screens. The chicks were able to see them moving between screens, but were not able to see how many were behind the screens. Thus their instinct to go to the larger group can only kick in if they know which group is larger. If they can't see the groups, then the only way they can know which is larger is to count and remember, or to use some other sense.
If I'm spending more time outside, that means less time inside, which means less time available to watch movies and use the computer, which means less reason to bother downloading movies, games, and apps (unless you are simply a hoarder).
It takes the string of hex characters and converts them to ASCII via the pack command, then executes the ASCII characters as perl code. Using any hex to ascii converter found on google (by the way, I'm surprised google built in converter doesn't know how to convert hex to ascii), the converted text is:
print pack(q{H*}'q{467265654253440a});
If you then run THAT command (as eval does), it then prints out:
Colbert saved the African elephant from extinction. He did this by virtue of his theory that whatever happens to be on wikipedia represents the truth. He urged his viewers to vandalize the wiki entry for elephants to say that the elephant population had tripled over the last 6 month, so that once it was vandalized it would now be the truth and the elephants would be saved. Here is park of the history of the page:
Actually, he didn't get it named after him. Some country (Hungary, I think) had a contest to name a bridge. Colbert urged viewers to spam the contest with his name, and he won. However, they said they would only use his name if: 1) he could demonstrate he was fluent in Hungarian, and 2) he was dead.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience over the years has been that hibernation/suspending either works or fails, but it does so reliably and consistently. If it works the first time you test it, it is likely to work just as well from there on out. It's generally just a matter of how well the hardware itself cooperates.
But the point was, this thread was about hibernation, but then you come in with a post about how long it takes you to login and get your tools opened. That has nothing to do with hibernation. It might have been relevant if hibernation randomly failed, but a) that hasn't been my experience, and b) you never mentioned such a scenario when you started talking about login times and such
Wait. So you are able to remote into your desktop from the WAN, but you don't have any servers on your network that could be access via SSH, or even a password protected website, in order to issue the WOL?
I'm not sure how it is pointless. I have a network in my household. It's been setup for years so that I can log into the server remotely, wake my desktop, and then do a remote connection to the desktop. I use it weekly, without issue. And thats what I've done in my hobby time. I'm sure an actual IT department can do at least as well.
Suspend to ram. Most machines can wake from it in under 10 seconds. Of course, your hardware and drivers have to support it, and do so in a stable manner (which isn't always the case)
Do you even realize how hiberation/suspending works? When you boot up, your system is in exactly the same state as when you booted/hibernated (assuming all the drivers and software cooperate). That means no more opening programs and file, logging in, mapping drives, etc. You might have to reopen some ssh sessions and stuff like that (if he server disconnected you), but otherwise there isn't much to be done.
Agreed. I tried to enable it recently on my wife's machine, but after it wakes up Firefox is in a state where it pauses ever 5 to 10 seconds. Restarting firefox doesn't fix it, either...only rebooting. Every other program works fine, and firefox works fine after suspending on my computer, so I don't believe it's firefox (or at most, some interaction between firefox and a driver or something), but I have no clue what causes it.
Interesting. So how does it take this air compressed to atmospheric pressure and use it to generate electricity (without using even more energy in the process)?
How do these work? The article wasn't completely clear. Where does it get it's supply of compressed air? The article mentions a motor to do the compress for higher speeds, which makes it sound like for lower speeds it would run off of air you fill it up with at the station. Is that correct? If so, that sounds pretty cool.
Otherwise, if all the compression were done in the car, I can't see how it would be even as efficient as a regular gas powered car (you know, thermodynamics and all that).
The guy saying "RTFA" was not talking to you, but the AC who claimed Phorm is opt-in, not opt-out.
In the AC's defense, though, the wikipedia article on Phorm says that UK Law requires it to be opt-in, and at least one ISP (TalkTalk) has implemented it in an opt-in manner. Other than that, though, it appears to be opt-out
FYI. I exchanged my P60 when that bug hit. You imply that you had to give up your processor for a few days, but that wasn't the case. They took a credit card number and placed a hold for the price of the processor. They then shipped you the new process, and you shipped back the old processor after swapping it out (and I believe return shipping was prepaid, but I'm not positive). If they didn't receive the old processor they would just make the charge against your credit card.
Couldn't be bothered to read the article? Check out page 7. It covers it in detail, but
1) no it doesn't fix anything
2) not all drives had problems in Bootcamp to begin with
I think you misunderstood. Your experience vs. mechanical drives has nothing to do with the issue. The AC said that the OCZ was faster than the Intel. Chris Daniel was simply saying "yes the OCZ is a bit faster for sequential acces, but random access (which is what most users experience the most) is better on the Intel"
If you look at Anand's article You will see that the OCZ beats the Intel slightly at sequential read (about 5%), and by a decent margin on sequential write (slightly less than 3x). However, these aren't things most users typically do...especially the writes. You are only likely to be doing that if you are working with editing large a/v files or something, and since large a/v files take up tons of space, a SSD probably isn't the best candidate for that anyway, given its current cost/storage metric. The OCZ might make sense working in a something like a professional AV editing environment, where you can copy the file off the server, work on it locally, and then copy it back to the server when done.
On the other hand, random reads and writes are something that virtually 100% of users experience on a regular basis, and this is where Intel really shines. On reads, Intel wins by a decent margin (slightly less than 2x the speed, and nearly half the latency). But then look at sequential writes, and Intel really takes the decisive win in that category. While the OCZ is a healthy 4x faster than Velociraptor, the Intel is just shy of 10x the performance of the OCZ (and thus nearly 40x the Velociraptor).
So, when you compare the Intel and the OCZ, the Intel loses slightly and decently on 2 operations that are less common, and it wins decently and decisively on 2 operations that are more common. Thus it's a pretty good stretch to try and say the OCZ is faster than the Intel.
Ummm, what you were discussing in that link has nothing to do with what this firmware is fixing. You were discussing performance decreases over time through ordinary use. This firmware fixes a bug that (so far) has only been able to be replicated under certain benchmark conditions, and has not yet appeared under real world conditions.
Don't pat yourself on the back too hard.
As AllynM mentioned, this fix addresses a different problem. If you read in that anandtech article, you will see this:
No, I'm pretty sure you are thinking of Mr. Sparkle. I use it all the time for lucky best wash. Can you see I am serious!
Seriously? Wow, that's something I'd never expect from Nintendo. Besides, if the Wii Speak Channel is what I think it is (from what the name suggests), I'm assuming it's a rather pointless channel if you don't have the hardware (Wii Speak) to use it. You may install the channel on 3 Wiis (if they allowed you to, that is), but you can still only use it on the one Wii that you have Wii Speak hooked up to. Seems kind of pointless to be requiring online authorization for software that essentially already has a dongle.
Well, it's refreshing to know that at least part of their response to 9/11 was carefully planned.
That's nice that you have your own personal definition, but I think the definition that the market has accepted is that it's simply a smaller, lower end laptop with fewer options and features.
I swear, I'm sick of everyone who goes off about how Obama isn't change and that it's business as usual (or 100 other cute ways of phrasing it). It gets tiresome. He's already changed the stance on a number of issues, so I don't know how you people can keep up that attitude.
Are you people going to whine if he doesn't do 100% of what you want him to do? Guess what...no single person in this world (other than yourself) is going to agree with you on every issue and do everything you want.
Yes, Obama's already done some things I'm not too thrilled about, but I recognize that he's done a number of things that I am thrilled about. In fact, he's done more that I approve of than not. If you want to disagree with him on individual decisions or to say that you are unhappy overall, that's one thing. But when you act like he's no different than Bush every time he makes a decision you disagree with, you sound like a whiny kid crying "I'm NEVER gonna learn to ride a bike" just because you fell down a couple times.
Yeah, and your desktop computer shouldn't be used to play games, either. It should be used to perform scientific calculations or process important business data or something. Welcome to the real world, where things find uses beyond their original intention. You may say netbooks shouldn't be used to do X, but when someone releases a netbook that CAN do X and people notice, your "should" and "shouldn't"s go right out the window.
What do I have (and by I, I'm just meaning any photographer in general)? Well, for one I've got an original file of that same image. Perhaps it contains slightly more resolution than the photo you've got (maybe it was downsampled, cropped, or modified in some other way). Perhaps it's in raw format, and that raw file can be converted (using the right settings) to generate the supplied art. The metadata in that file (camera, lens, focal length, focal distance, shutter speed, aperture, iso, capture time, etc) can be used to verify several things, like is the angle of shadows consistant with the time of day, is the depth of field consistant with what you'd get from the indicated lens+settings, etc. Of course, all of that could theoretically be reverse engineered from the photo, but it would take quite a bit of effort and be prone to error.
I then also have a couple other photos of the same scene from slightly different angles. I've got dozens (if not hundreds) of other images from the same location or event. Evidence like that would be MANY orders of magnitude more difficult to fake. If you could fake that, you'd have no need to steal images because you could obviously just fabricate any photo you'd like.
Of course, if that's not the nail in the coffin, then there is also the fact that I (hopefully) registered the photo with the copyright office prior to your first documented usage of the image. And barring that, maybe I've sold the image to some other company before your first documented usage, and they can be called on to testify to that.
In short, even in the film days, an original negative was the least of the evidence a photographer had to prove his ownership, and in the age of digital photography, that same evidence is still every bit as useful.
It says the containers were placed behind screens. The chicks were able to see them moving between screens, but were not able to see how many were behind the screens. Thus their instinct to go to the larger group can only kick in if they know which group is larger. If they can't see the groups, then the only way they can know which is larger is to count and remember, or to use some other sense.
If I'm spending more time outside, that means less time inside, which means less time available to watch movies and use the computer, which means less reason to bother downloading movies, games, and apps (unless you are simply a hoarder).
It takes the string of hex characters and converts them to ASCII via the pack command, then executes the ASCII characters as perl code. Using any hex to ascii converter found on google (by the way, I'm surprised google built in converter doesn't know how to convert hex to ascii), the converted text is:
print pack(q{H*}'q{467265654253440a});
If you then run THAT command (as eval does), it then prints out:
FreeBSD
Colbert saved the African elephant from extinction. He did this by virtue of his theory that whatever happens to be on wikipedia represents the truth. He urged his viewers to vandalize the wiki entry for elephants to say that the elephant population had tripled over the last 6 month, so that once it was vandalized it would now be the truth and the elephants would be saved. Here is park of the history of the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elephant&offset=20060801170519&limit=500&action=history
Actually, he didn't get it named after him. Some country (Hungary, I think) had a contest to name a bridge. Colbert urged viewers to spam the contest with his name, and he won. However, they said they would only use his name if:
1) he could demonstrate he was fluent in Hungarian, and
2) he was dead.
That sounds like it could be one of the side effects of Vaxadrine