Take 1 Pumpkin, hollow it out as you would normally because you want to make it into a scary face. Keep the seeds for roasting (wash them, roast on tray for 90 minutes, have with salt). Throw away the guts. Cut out lots of the flesh until the pumpkin is around 1cm thick all around, or less. Spoons are good for scraping. Most of you should have well developed wrists so you shouldn't get too tired by scraping repetitively.
Boil the pumpkin flesh for half an hour, drain and mash.
Heat oven to 200C/400F. Put shortcrust pastry into pie dish (9" or more, if you got lots of pumpkin flesh).
Beat pumpkin with can of evaporated milk, 2 eggs, 3/4 cup brown sugar, 1/2 teaspoon each of ground cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg and salt. Mix well.
Pour mixture into pastry lined pie dish. Cook 40 minutes or until knife comes out of pie clean when inserted. Serve hot with cream.
Alternatively search Google for Pumpkin Pie recipes. But don't waste that pumpkin flesh! You can also make pumpkin soup.
Apart from the 2.6GHz FX55, but that is a top of the line 130nm part, the best of a process generation. And some people are overclocking these on air to 2.8, 2.9GHz. I expect that the FX55 uses around 100W though, because it isn't a 90nm part and it is the fastest
AMD's 90nm 3500+ uses under 67W of power however at 2.2GHz.
You'd use 32-bit pointers if your dataset would be under 4GB (well, less than that due to other factors, but you get the point) in size, otherwise you'd have more than 4GB of memory installed and it would continue to not be a problem.
Anyway, a linked list of integers of 32-bit size would get 50% larger with 64-bit pointers. A linked list of 64-bit size integers would get 33% larger. Most linked lists don't merely hold a single item however, so the overhead wouldn't be that bad in the common case.
Certainly about how AMD do dual-core, which as it has been detailed since 2001 (and talked about since 1999) I think is extremely poor for a large website like Anandtech to get wrong.
See comments 50, 51 and 54 that go with the story to see how AMD actually do dual-core (they don't 'fuse' hypertransport links together, like the article says they do)
What is sadder is that they haven't corrected the story even though the incorrectness has been pointed out to them in the feedback, and presumably via e-mail as well. Nothing in the article can be trusted in any way because if basic facts are ignored, then what about the rest?
I certainly do not think that such poor articles should be linked from Slashdot. Why should AnandTech get rewarded for such shoddy work?
Plasma screens burn in very quickly, but OLEDs lose brightness accuracy within a few thousands hours. They need to fix that first.
Large strides have been made in this arena recently.
Even so, if they can make the damned things by printing them, then sell me a 10 year display package that will include a new screen being shipped to me every 2 years (high use) and just reusing the base electronics. The manufacturers get to recoup the technology costs, and sell products soon, and the consumer won't get affected by the dimming issues for certain OLED components.
That, or sell the displays for cheapish with "suitable for 5000 hours viewing time (5 years at 20 hours/week) that people will know they'll have to replace. Anyway, the new stuff in 5 years time will be even better! This would be great for the viewer that wants a big screen to watch the occasional movie on, but doesn't watch TV much - I'm sure quite a lot of people here come under that category.
Not much has been going for Intel this year, and now they've cancelled these chips as well. Sure, maybe they wouldn't have got a good return on them, but why not put the price up a bit to compensate at the beginning?
With all the delays on the processor side of things, with only the Pentium-M still executing to plan (well, sans 533MHz FSB at the moment), and this new issue, what is going on at Intel?
Nah, it's not simple scaling, in this case vertically. It's kinda like it though. There are 480 SUBpixels vertically, in alternating RG and BW pairs (or RW BG or whatever). A normal pixel would affect all of the RGBW quartet, but on this screen it only applies at 50%. The next pixel down adds to it in the BWRG quartet, and so on. Hence full brightness, and kinda 480 pixels vertical resolution. However a 1 pixel high black line inbetween white space will come out 50% grey. At small screen sizes you probably wouldn't notice.
As far as I can tell, they are not doing that in any shape or form.
For a start, Cleartype is for text and increases the horizontal resolution of text because the subpixel resolution of a 640x480 screen is actually 1920x480
This is RGBW... and I am guessing that it is laid out in a
RG BW
format, i.e., a 640x480 screen would have a subpixel resolution of 1280x960. Cleartype wouldn't work on this screen as it is currently implemented.
What they are doing is taking a 640x240 "Double Height" screen (i.e., 4:3 with tall pixels) and using this to get a subpixel resolution of 1280x480.
So it looks like they are kinda then using a cunning but easy to work out algorithm to spread a 480 pixel high display over a 240 pixel high RG/BW display. I.e., Even Lines contribute 50% to RGBW square, odd lines contribute 50% to BWRG square that is offset a little below.
It certainly isn't perfect. But it sounds easier to fit 1280 subpixels in a small display than 1920 doesn't it?
but the other upgrades have all added significant new features to the operating system. They aren't upgrades and bugfixes, bugfixes happen in the 10.x.y series, which seem to be bimonthly or so.
Longhorn is still based on the NT kernel. Oh wow, it adds a new graphics system - 10.2 did that for Mac OS X. WinFS got shelved. There isn't much else going into Longhorn except more desktop wastage for fancy clocks and to up CPU requirements, and lots and lots of DRM. 10.4 is introducing CoreGraphics on Mac OS X, a major new feature. Maybe Longhorn's new graphics capabilities are going to be as major as Quartz Extreme (10.2) and CoreGraphics (10.4) together, but Apple will still be releasing 10.4 a whole year ahead of Longhorn.
I think that $129 to upgrade say, 10.2 to 10.4 is worth it in terms of extra features. I don't think that it is really worth it to upgrade 10.2 to 10.3 or 10.3 to 10.4 however. That should cost $79.
admittedly the windows release cycle probably matched most people's home computer upgrade cycle, whereas people tend to use macs a lot longer and thus do actually upgrade, maybe not *every* upgrade.
Both upgrades included a massive leap in stability - OS9 to OSX and Win9x to WinNT. The OSX releases tend to include a lot more functionality than a mere service pack would include, although I do think that apple should price the upgrade lower for people upgrading from OSX.Y-1 to OSX.Y
Prices for Mac hardware these days certainly isn't that bad compared to comparable PC hardware. A $499 Dell PC certainly isn't in the same league as even an eMac.
Indeed. Especially the ones who are sharing lots of music. It isn't very different than selling pirated music on a market stall, except you aren't making a profit.
Whilst I think that punishments for mere copyright infringement of stuff that most people wouldn't have bought anyway are a bit too strong, they can always get people for the uploading. Otherwise you'd get a letter from the RIAA and decide to spend the money on getting the music for real that you'd downloaded as it would be less than the fine.
Then it should not be able to be banned because a person uses it for an illegal use.
* standard comment about guns here - people kill, not guns, etc etc *
Some of the software out there is clearly written to share music and video files that will most likely be breaking copyright. Regardless, it is still the people that are doing the music copying that are breaking the law, not the software.
Well I have a 24" Widescreen (I don't watch much TV though). My parents have a 28" Widescreen. My mate has a 32" Widescreen. Widescreen is pretty much standard in the UK now, I don't know why anyone would buy a 4:3 screen anymore. Most 576i content is widescreen too since the introduction of widescreen around 6 to 8 years ago. People tend to pay under £600 for a new TV, and at the moment 100Hz 32" Widescreens are at this price point. Note that I couldn't even find a listing for a bigger CRT screen on the website I just checked out.
Fact is, most people's living rooms are small in the UK unless you pay an awful lot for a house. There just isn't the land available. So people get a TV that is a suitable size for the room.
Of course when thinner televisions become more affordable, I expect people will move to 42"+ displays. CRTs are massive and take up a lot of room, and hence people are limited by the depth of the display. If I had to buy a new TV for my house now I'd look into 42" displays however.
America and Japan are leading the way with this, mainly due to having more of a need for it because of NTSC than our PAL system.
We did all the work on Digital TV and Satellite TV though over in Europe first, so it is about time they did some work and then we can benefit from it in a few years time when it is cheaper.:)
Of course, they have much bigger houses in the US, so they need bigger TVs, so higher resolution is handier there. Over here due to our higher population densities we usually settle on ~30" widescreen TVs these days at most.
I expect a few satellite companies will start HDTV transmissions in Europe in 2005 or 2006 at the latest.
When I didn't have a TV I got the letters a couple of times, then a year later, but that is all.
What annoys me more is that they take the money a year in advance. So if you decide to get rid of TV functionality, you throw away a year's worth of fees.
Since when was Five, an advertising funded channel, a BBC channel?
Sheesh.
Five is just trash anyway. It attracts the low-lifes and teenagers like Channel 4 did in the 80's and 90's with The Word and Eurotrash.
You can get all the biased news programming you like on the Internet if you read US news sources. It is all advertising funded. The owners push their political bent upon the station and its websites too.
Anyway, you got owned by (replied to) a troll/sarcastic person.
Considering that BBC is a tenner a month, and it gets you 8 unbiased, non-advertising TV stations and 10 radio stations, free to air, I think that is okay.
Except it is under $20 US (£10) a month, and that's only because the exchange rate is bad for you Americans - before Bush came into power that would have been $14 a month for you.
Or in the case of the BBC in the UK. NO COMMERCIALS.
It is silly. When the BBC shows US shows they usually fit them into a 45 minute slot with a 2 minute news bulletin at the end, then a 15 minute small program like Points of View or whatnot. Even the advertising funded channels seem to fit a 1 hour US show into 50 to 55 minutes.
The only bummer is the lack of toilet breaks! Still, get a TiVo-esque device and that'll be fine too.
And it sounds like you'd benefit from paying for non-advertising TV, because then you wouldn't get so many stupid sitcoms and reality TV, which the plebs watch, and hence the advertisers demand.
But since visiting the US and watching TV there, I realised how invaluable it is to have impartial television, free from political and advertising pressure.
The money collected from the ~£10/month TV licence all goes to the BBC. For it the average person in the UK can get around 10 national BBC Radio stations, the two primary BBC TV channels (BBC1, BBC2), another two BBC channels for arts and stuff (BBC3, BBC4), two kids channels (CBeebies, CBBC) and two news channels (BBC News 24 and BBC Parliament) all with NO advertising, no political bent, etc.
The free-to-air digital terrestrial system also has another 19 advert funded TV channels available on it, and 13 digital radio stations in addition to the 11 BBC stations. There's some 'interactive' channels too.
I've never heard of or seen a 'TV Detector Van' except on the TV adverts which were menacing, I assume that they simply check out the lists of houses without TV licences and send them through the initial letter that reads "We note that you do not have a TV licence. If you don't have a TV, please respond in the pre-pay envelope provided and say so, otherwise pay up in case we check." which I used to get when I didn't have a TV.
Hold the front pages everyone! It appears that the unthinkable has happened!
Get this! A company in a high-competition marketplace is going to release new products to compete with other companies!
Yes! You heard that right. They aren't going down the tried and trusted route of hanging on to the previous design, they are going to move forward, expand their offerings and try to get more people interested.
But! But! I hear you say, why would a company do such a thing?
Maybe this group should forward their findings onto the relevant data protection agency in the Netherlands... it would be interesting to see what happened.
(answer: nothing, these agencies exist to suck money and do nothing)
They've been in Europe for a few years now, I remember seeing one about 3 years ago.
Contrary to popular belief, the UK isn't a place with a few cars, empty country roads and stuff. It has tonnes of cars, tonnes of bad drivers (not as many as the US though, our driving test is a bit more advanced) and lots of accidents.
Oddly enough, there hasn't been a revolt or outcry over SMART car accident rates being higher than average.
Of course, they are more ideal for the UK which in-town is slow to drive due to road systems developed when horses and carriages were in vogue - often narrow streets, etc. They are a good solution if you do a lot of city driving in a place like this.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be seen dead driving one. Then again, I don't do a lot of city driving.
Slashdot Mirror
Take 1 Pumpkin, hollow it out as you would normally because you want to make it into a scary face. Keep the seeds for roasting (wash them, roast on tray for 90 minutes, have with salt). Throw away the guts. Cut out lots of the flesh until the pumpkin is around 1cm thick all around, or less. Spoons are good for scraping. Most of you should have well developed wrists so you shouldn't get too tired by scraping repetitively.
Boil the pumpkin flesh for half an hour, drain and mash.
Heat oven to 200C/400F. Put shortcrust pastry into pie dish (9" or more, if you got lots of pumpkin flesh).
Beat pumpkin with can of evaporated milk, 2 eggs, 3/4 cup brown sugar, 1/2 teaspoon each of ground cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg and salt. Mix well.
Pour mixture into pastry lined pie dish. Cook 40 minutes or until knife comes out of pie clean when inserted. Serve hot with cream.
Alternatively search Google for Pumpkin Pie recipes. But don't waste that pumpkin flesh! You can also make pumpkin soup.
Double click in unused tab space to open a new blank tab in Firefox.
.10.1 in gentoo however, I'll wait for it to hit 1.0 before upgrading again.
And, err, my Firefox has "Open in Tabs" for folders within the Bookmarks menu, and on the bookmarks toolbar. Hmmm.
Having just compiled
Apart from the 2.6GHz FX55, but that is a top of the line 130nm part, the best of a process generation. And some people are overclocking these on air to 2.8, 2.9GHz. I expect that the FX55 uses around 100W though, because it isn't a 90nm part and it is the fastest
AMD's 90nm 3500+ uses under 67W of power however at 2.2GHz.
You'd use 32-bit pointers if your dataset would be under 4GB (well, less than that due to other factors, but you get the point) in size, otherwise you'd have more than 4GB of memory installed and it would continue to not be a problem.
Anyway, a linked list of integers of 32-bit size would get 50% larger with 64-bit pointers. A linked list of 64-bit size integers would get 33% larger. Most linked lists don't merely hold a single item however, so the overhead wouldn't be that bad in the common case.
Certainly about how AMD do dual-core, which as it has been detailed since 2001 (and talked about since 1999) I think is extremely poor for a large website like Anandtech to get wrong.
See comments 50, 51 and 54 that go with the story to see how AMD actually do dual-core (they don't 'fuse' hypertransport links together, like the article says they do)
What is sadder is that they haven't corrected the story even though the incorrectness has been pointed out to them in the feedback, and presumably via e-mail as well. Nothing in the article can be trusted in any way because if basic facts are ignored, then what about the rest?
I certainly do not think that such poor articles should be linked from Slashdot. Why should AnandTech get rewarded for such shoddy work?
Large strides have been made in this arena recently.
Even so, if they can make the damned things by printing them, then sell me a 10 year display package that will include a new screen being shipped to me every 2 years (high use) and just reusing the base electronics. The manufacturers get to recoup the technology costs, and sell products soon, and the consumer won't get affected by the dimming issues for certain OLED components.
That, or sell the displays for cheapish with "suitable for 5000 hours viewing time (5 years at 20 hours/week) that people will know they'll have to replace. Anyway, the new stuff in 5 years time will be even better! This would be great for the viewer that wants a big screen to watch the occasional movie on, but doesn't watch TV much - I'm sure quite a lot of people here come under that category.
Not much has been going for Intel this year, and now they've cancelled these chips as well. Sure, maybe they wouldn't have got a good return on them, but why not put the price up a bit to compensate at the beginning?
With all the delays on the processor side of things, with only the Pentium-M still executing to plan (well, sans 533MHz FSB at the moment), and this new issue, what is going on at Intel?
Nah, it's not simple scaling, in this case vertically. It's kinda like it though. There are 480 SUBpixels vertically, in alternating RG and BW pairs (or RW BG or whatever). A normal pixel would affect all of the RGBW quartet, but on this screen it only applies at 50%. The next pixel down adds to it in the BWRG quartet, and so on. Hence full brightness, and kinda 480 pixels vertical resolution. However a 1 pixel high black line inbetween white space will come out 50% grey. At small screen sizes you probably wouldn't notice.
As far as I can tell, they are not doing that in any shape or form.
... and I am guessing that it is laid out in a
For a start, Cleartype is for text and increases the horizontal resolution of text because the subpixel resolution of a 640x480 screen is actually 1920x480
This is RGBW
RG
BW
format, i.e., a 640x480 screen would have a subpixel resolution of 1280x960. Cleartype wouldn't work on this screen as it is currently implemented.
What they are doing is taking a 640x240 "Double Height" screen (i.e., 4:3 with tall pixels) and using this to get a subpixel resolution of 1280x480.
So it looks like they are kinda then using a cunning but easy to work out algorithm to spread a 480 pixel high display over a 240 pixel high RG/BW display. I.e., Even Lines contribute 50% to RGBW square, odd lines contribute 50% to BWRG square that is offset a little below.
It certainly isn't perfect. But it sounds easier to fit 1280 subpixels in a small display than 1920 doesn't it?
10.0 to 10.1 was free because 10.0 was crap
but the other upgrades have all added significant new features to the operating system. They aren't upgrades and bugfixes, bugfixes happen in the 10.x.y series, which seem to be bimonthly or so.
Longhorn is still based on the NT kernel. Oh wow, it adds a new graphics system - 10.2 did that for Mac OS X. WinFS got shelved. There isn't much else going into Longhorn except more desktop wastage for fancy clocks and to up CPU requirements, and lots and lots of DRM. 10.4 is introducing CoreGraphics on Mac OS X, a major new feature. Maybe Longhorn's new graphics capabilities are going to be as major as Quartz Extreme (10.2) and CoreGraphics (10.4) together, but Apple will still be releasing 10.4 a whole year ahead of Longhorn.
I think that $129 to upgrade say, 10.2 to 10.4 is worth it in terms of extra features. I don't think that it is really worth it to upgrade 10.2 to 10.3 or 10.3 to 10.4 however. That should cost $79.
Well compare the price of Win XP Pro (OEM $146, Retail Upgrade $199, New $241) with Mac OS X upgrades ($125)
So Win95 -> Win98 -> Win2000 -> WinXP
OS8 -> OS9 -> OSX -> OSX.2 -> OSX.3 -> OSX.4
admittedly the windows release cycle probably matched most people's home computer upgrade cycle, whereas people tend to use macs a lot longer and thus do actually upgrade, maybe not *every* upgrade.
Both upgrades included a massive leap in stability - OS9 to OSX and Win9x to WinNT. The OSX releases tend to include a lot more functionality than a mere service pack would include, although I do think that apple should price the upgrade lower for people upgrading from OSX.Y-1 to OSX.Y
Prices for Mac hardware these days certainly isn't that bad compared to comparable PC hardware. A $499 Dell PC certainly isn't in the same league as even an eMac.
Indeed. Especially the ones who are sharing lots of music. It isn't very different than selling pirated music on a market stall, except you aren't making a profit.
Whilst I think that punishments for mere copyright infringement of stuff that most people wouldn't have bought anyway are a bit too strong, they can always get people for the uploading. Otherwise you'd get a letter from the RIAA and decide to spend the money on getting the music for real that you'd downloaded as it would be less than the fine.
Then it should not be able to be banned because a person uses it for an illegal use.
* standard comment about guns here - people kill, not guns, etc etc *
Some of the software out there is clearly written to share music and video files that will most likely be breaking copyright. Regardless, it is still the people that are doing the music copying that are breaking the law, not the software.
Well I have a 24" Widescreen (I don't watch much TV though). My parents have a 28" Widescreen. My mate has a 32" Widescreen. Widescreen is pretty much standard in the UK now, I don't know why anyone would buy a 4:3 screen anymore. Most 576i content is widescreen too since the introduction of widescreen around 6 to 8 years ago. People tend to pay under £600 for a new TV, and at the moment 100Hz 32" Widescreens are at this price point. Note that I couldn't even find a listing for a bigger CRT screen on the website I just checked out.
Fact is, most people's living rooms are small in the UK unless you pay an awful lot for a house. There just isn't the land available. So people get a TV that is a suitable size for the room.
Of course when thinner televisions become more affordable, I expect people will move to 42"+ displays. CRTs are massive and take up a lot of room, and hence people are limited by the depth of the display. If I had to buy a new TV for my house now I'd look into 42" displays however.
High Definition Television
:)
America and Japan are leading the way with this, mainly due to having more of a need for it because of NTSC than our PAL system.
We did all the work on Digital TV and Satellite TV though over in Europe first, so it is about time they did some work and then we can benefit from it in a few years time when it is cheaper.
Of course, they have much bigger houses in the US, so they need bigger TVs, so higher resolution is handier there. Over here due to our higher population densities we usually settle on ~30" widescreen TVs these days at most.
I expect a few satellite companies will start HDTV transmissions in Europe in 2005 or 2006 at the latest.
That's really rather bad.
When I didn't have a TV I got the letters a couple of times, then a year later, but that is all.
What annoys me more is that they take the money a year in advance. So if you decide to get rid of TV functionality, you throw away a year's worth of fees.
Since when was Five, an advertising funded channel, a BBC channel?
Sheesh.
Five is just trash anyway. It attracts the low-lifes and teenagers like Channel 4 did in the 80's and 90's with The Word and Eurotrash.
You can get all the biased news programming you like on the Internet if you read US news sources. It is all advertising funded. The owners push their political bent upon the station and its websites too.
Anyway, you got owned by (replied to) a troll/sarcastic person.
Considering that BBC is a tenner a month, and it gets you 8 unbiased, non-advertising TV stations and 10 radio stations, free to air, I think that is okay.
You are not paying a fee for owning a television though.
You are paying a fee to find the impartial advert-free BBC. Which is a service, duh!
The fact that the easiest way to see who can watch the BBC is to charge people who have a TV is merely why it is called the TV Licence.
You can detune your TV and use it merely for DVDs and video games if you like. You don't have to pay a TV licence then.
Except it is under $20 US (£10) a month, and that's only because the exchange rate is bad for you Americans - before Bush came into power that would have been $14 a month for you.
Or in the case of the BBC in the UK. NO COMMERCIALS.
It is silly. When the BBC shows US shows they usually fit them into a 45 minute slot with a 2 minute news bulletin at the end, then a 15 minute small program like Points of View or whatnot. Even the advertising funded channels seem to fit a 1 hour US show into 50 to 55 minutes.
The only bummer is the lack of toilet breaks! Still, get a TiVo-esque device and that'll be fine too.
And it sounds like you'd benefit from paying for non-advertising TV, because then you wouldn't get so many stupid sitcoms and reality TV, which the plebs watch, and hence the advertisers demand.
I used to hate the license fee as well.
But since visiting the US and watching TV there, I realised how invaluable it is to have impartial television, free from political and advertising pressure.
The money collected from the ~£10/month TV licence all goes to the BBC. For it the average person in the UK can get around 10 national BBC Radio stations, the two primary BBC TV channels (BBC1, BBC2), another two BBC channels for arts and stuff (BBC3, BBC4), two kids channels (CBeebies, CBBC) and two news channels (BBC News 24 and BBC Parliament) all with NO advertising, no political bent, etc.
The free-to-air digital terrestrial system also has another 19 advert funded TV channels available on it, and 13 digital radio stations in addition to the 11 BBC stations. There's some 'interactive' channels too.
I've never heard of or seen a 'TV Detector Van' except on the TV adverts which were menacing, I assume that they simply check out the lists of houses without TV licences and send them through the initial letter that reads "We note that you do not have a TV licence. If you don't have a TV, please respond in the pre-pay envelope provided and say so, otherwise pay up in case we check." which I used to get when I didn't have a TV.
Hold the front pages everyone! It appears that the unthinkable has happened!
Get this! A company in a high-competition marketplace is going to release new products to compete with other companies!
Yes! You heard that right. They aren't going down the tried and trusted route of hanging on to the previous design, they are going to move forward, expand their offerings and try to get more people interested.
But! But! I hear you say, why would a company do such a thing?
Beats me. Sure beats me.
Yes.
Err, I suppose I had better write something else.
Um.
Maybe this group should forward their findings onto the relevant data protection agency in the Netherlands ... it would be interesting to see what happened.
(answer: nothing, these agencies exist to suck money and do nothing)
They've been in Europe for a few years now, I remember seeing one about 3 years ago.
Contrary to popular belief, the UK isn't a place with a few cars, empty country roads and stuff. It has tonnes of cars, tonnes of bad drivers (not as many as the US though, our driving test is a bit more advanced) and lots of accidents.
Oddly enough, there hasn't been a revolt or outcry over SMART car accident rates being higher than average.
Of course, they are more ideal for the UK which in-town is slow to drive due to road systems developed when horses and carriages were in vogue - often narrow streets, etc. They are a good solution if you do a lot of city driving in a place like this.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be seen dead driving one. Then again, I don't do a lot of city driving.