> like if you plug a usb 1.X device onto a usb 2.0 bus, then everything slows to usb 1.X. IINM...
This is wrong, if you plug a USB 1.1 device into a USB 2.0 "bus" then it does NOT slow everything down. Specifically there are 2 cases:
1. You plug a USB 1.1 device directly into your computer (i.e. directly into the "host controller"). In this case, the USB 2.0 host controller (technically a EHCI chip) does NOT talk to your device. Instead, the EHCI chip has one or more USB 1.1 host controller chips (technically either a OHCI or UHCI chip, and called a "companion" chip when inside a EHCI chip) and your USB 1.1 device is connected electrically to that controller. You device is not on the USB 2.0 (EHCI) bus.
2. You plug a USB 1.1 device into a USB 2.0 hub. In this case, the USB 2.0 hub creates a complete USB 1.1 environment specifically for your device. On the host-facing side of the USB 2.0 hub, all communication continues to take place at USB 2.0 (i.e. 480Mbps) speeds. When the host wants to talk to your USB 1.1 device, it uses what is called "split transactions" to talk to it. Basically (I'm simplifying), this involves sending a "start" packet to the USB 2.0 hub. Then, the USB 2.0 (EHCI) controller goes on to do other things, while the USB 2.0 hub initiates the transfer to your device at USB 1.1 speeds. And data transferred from the USB 1.1 device is stored temporarily in the USB 2.0 hub. Eventually the USB 2.0 (EHCI) host sends a "finish" packet to the USB 2.0 hub. If the USB 1.1 transation finished, the USB 2.0 hub responds successfully (either with the incoming data or a "ack" that the outgoing data was sent) which completes the transation.
(There is also a combination case of those, where the EHCI chip does not contain a "companion" USB 1.1 chip, but instead contains an internal USB 2.0 partial hub - the "transaction translator" part - that handles talking to USB 1.1 devices. For bus usage purposes, this is effectively the same as using an external USB 2.0 hub, since the USB 1.1 devices do not appear on the USB 2.0 bus.)
Ah, you mean the 1-second delay. You know, you are really wasting your money by just using the Tivo as a VCR. You should try the service, I think you don't know what you're missing.
Anyway, if you want to bypass the Tivo's buffered recording (i.e. watch TV directly without rewind capability), just watch TV directly. You can get a cable splitter, split the signal coming out of your cable box, and assuming your TV has at least 2 inputs just connect Tivo to one input and your box output to the other. Switch to Tivo only when you want to setup a recording or watch a recorded show.
Although, what I would recommend (besides actually getting service for your Tivo!) is using the Tivo's IR dongle to manage your cable box. Then use the Tivo's remote control to change channels.
I think you are not informed at all on what your Tivo is capable of. You should read the user's guide! If you don't have one, I think you might be able to download them from tivo.com, or at least read some of the FAQ or documentation on tivo.com.
Have you properly shielded your cable box's IR receiver? If your Tivo remote is IR-interfering with the signal that the Tivo sends (via its IR dongle) then channel changing will be mostly unsuccessful. If you read the Tivo instruction manual it shows how to block the cable box's IR receiver so it only gets the Tivo-dongle IR signal, not the secondary conflicting signal from your Tivo remote. Basically just put something opaque in front of the cable box's IR receiver and Tivo IR dongle.
If you live in Raleigh, NC (or anywhere in the Triangle) you can get Nextel Broadband. They just started rolling it out. I haven't tried it, but if you need mobile broadband, it's probably faster and cheaper than going through your cellphone.
And, for hardware, you can choose between a PCMCIA card (which probably requires Windoze drivers) and a modem with an ethernet port. I assume the modem with ethernet doesn't require any special drivers or software (although that could be a bad assumption).
Let me add yet another "me too", as Gandi.net is by far the best I've found. They have excellent free tools such as email forwarding, www forwarding, DNS, etc. And their prices are very low. Plus, best of all, their contract makes you the owner of your domain, unlike most other registrars that only provide you the service (and retain ownership of the domain!).
I don't know anything about medieval linguistics, but I thought it was pretty cool when the characters in "The Two Towers" started talking in subtitled Elvish.
Only if it's to report news; news reporting has specific mention in the Fair Use clause. "...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..."
Speechwriters can't lift parts of other people's speeches without permission. Many public speeches however give implict permission to reproduce them, such as most government official's speeches. A private speech, for example a Tony Robbins motivational speech, most certainly can't be re-used by someone else.
Parody is a common example of commercial fair use.
True. But by "commercial" I meant non-parody use, i.e. using something in the same way as it was originally created. In this example, Dr Dre used the sampled music in a non-parody commercial way. That's just not legal without permission from the original author.
I had something just like this happen to me in college; I was working on a programming assignment, which we had to turn in a hardcopy of the source code for, and I printed out and then threw away a first-draft copy. I was in a computer lab, and the paper recycling bin is right beside the printer. Apparently someone else in my class saw my discarded paper and copied it. When we got the assignments back, the teacher talked to both of us individually, and while the teacher agreed that I hadn't actually given the answers to the other student, I was still guilty of cheating somehow. If I didn't admit to cheating and go to some stupid cheater's rehab class, I would have to face the academic board, which had the power to expel me. The stupidity involved is unbelievable!
The software (and hardware) market is full of so many highly-qualified people, most with years of experience, that employers have little to no incentive to care whether their current employees are happy or not. If they're not, they can either leave or get fired, and it will be easy to replace them, probably with someone more qualified and/or with more experience, who will work for as much or maybe less money.
It's gonna be like this, in our job market at least, for a while. Hopefully not too long...!
It pains me to even acknowledge your pointless and profane post, but I can't help pointing out that I got first post (with a on-topic post, I might add)...
so why don't you subscribe to/., and then you really might have a better chance of getting first post. Since you (and many, many other AC and logged-in trolls) feel compelled to waste the seemingly endless amounts of free time you have, you might as well help pay the bills for the website whose users and owners you're annoying.
Yep, the way the Catholic Church works in reguards to hiring and firing priests and a lack of over-view from Rome is flawed.
Haha, I like how you twist things around so that it fits your warped view of the world. So corrupt Catholic Priests don't invalidate what they stand for (Catholic religion), only their 'hiring practices'. However, corrupt environmentalists do invaidate everything they stand for (preservation of the environment). It must be nice when you are always right and everyone else is wrong, and you can ignore trivial things like 'facts', 'truth', and 'reality'.
I say, bullshit.
An idea can be flawed because of it's leadership and how it's been applied.
You can think whatever you want; you're still wrong. However, you consistently have ignored the truth so far, so all I can suggest is what I've already mentioned, take a course on philosophy or just talk to a philosophy professor.
Just because Hitler ordered the murder of 12 million racial and religious minorities doesn't mean Facism is flawed.
That's right. However, you're using an example where the idea is (probably) flawed, which makes your position sound more plausible. The idea of Facism stands on its own, and Hitler's actions are completely irrelevant to whether Facism is flawed or not. I'm not familar with the details of Facism, so I can't say whether it is or not, but I do know that an idea must be judged as flawed or not based on the idea, not those who present the idea.
There are plenty of Catholic Priests that molest children. Using your argument, that must mean that the Catholic religion is flawed. Sounds reasonable to me, dood.
Who cares? Go take a basic philosophy class, man. You can't discount an idea because of the actions of its proponents (and in this case, only a small portion of its proponents). Although when talking to the uneducated masses, attacking the person or group (instead of their idea) always a good tactic to use when your position is hopelessly undefendable and their position is so obviously correct. Were you on the defense team for OJ?
ALF, Hezbollah, Earth First, Earth Liberation Front, Hamas, Violent Right to Life, WCC...
Terrorism is terrorism.
Ah, good idea. If you can't dispute what people are saying, then focus on the worst of their crowd, and then you can either, at least, make them all seem like nuts so their position is discredited, or at best, actually convince the general population that you are doing the right thing!
Yep, absolutely true - some environmentalists are getting violent (because previous nonviolent efforts have had little or no effect) so, that must mean they're all crazy and it's perfectly ok to go ahead and clear-cut California! Man, the logic there is unquestionable.
There's a rather clear and definable moment where Star Trek's quality suffered a containment breach. The moment Gene Roddenberry died.
Ain't that the truth. Roddenberry kept a tight rein on the Trek universe, keeping everything consistent and in line with his vision of that universe. It made everyone happy, the true fans who keep track of technical details and other minor stuff like character personalities. Then when he died Hollywood (ahem, Braga) took over and it became a cross between an outer-space soap opera and Western shoot-em-up. Trek universe laws were either downplayed or completely ignored (ahem, Enterprise, it may look 'sexy', but Vulcan chicks don't like to get semi-nude rubdowns, even if it's for "decontamination"...). Character consistency was no longer important, and eventually, with new people and series, character developement was dropped in favor of sex and violence. I mean sure, there was sex and violence in the original series and TNG, but you need a fucking plot and real character development!
I stopped watching after TNG. All the rest have been utter crap, and it pains me to be reminded that they carry the Star Trek name. It is for sure not the same universe.
Redwoods are designed to survive NORMAL forest fires, the kinds that swept through the forests for thousands of years, cleaning the forest.
Mature Redwoods (like the 200+ year old ones being clear cut by Pacific Lumber) will survive even severe forest fires, read this. However no tree can survive Pacific Lumber's chainsaw. Period. And let's not bullshit about whether they are clear-cutting or just 'clearing out dead wood'. Don't insult everyone's intelligence.
Today we have 100 or 200 year fires every year from the crap in the forests that the forest service and loggers can't remove because of environmentalists.
Environmentalists are preventing forest workers (and loggers) from clearing out 'dead wood'.
Since 'dead wood' is allowed to pile up, it results in unspeakably horrible forest fires worse than any of those seen before.
If loggers were allowed to clear cut, then we wouldn't have to worry about bad forest fires! Horray loggers!
If you can spare any, I'd like some of the crack that you're smoking, because it's clearly pretty good. Luckily, common sense tells us that since loggers have only been around for the last couple hundred years, and forests have been around a LOT longer than that, those "terrible, terrible fires" have been happening for millions of years. Luckily, we now have what's called "prescribed burns" that help reduce the naturally intense forest fires into several smaller, less dangerous fires. The smaller fires are not prevented by environmentalists, and allow more trees to survive. But even the larger more sever fires don't (usually) kill the ancient Redwood trees. Nope, only Pacific Lumber has managed to do that.
It's people like you that are quicking destroying our planet and making this a barren rock with nothing other than Humans, pets, and house-plants. The environmental damage caused by our race in just the last 100 years is absolutely staggering, and the rate of destruction is only increasing. Sad, really.
The evolution of a western United States forest doesn't stop at the large conifers
No it doesn't, at least for the moment (but not for long if Pacific Lumber has their way) it includes giant Redwoods, some of the oldest trees in the world. RTFA before you spew some bullshit about conifers.
Slashdot Mirror
Average temperature predictions scary? Only to you.
> like if you plug a usb 1.X device onto a usb 2.0 bus, then everything slows to usb 1.X. IINM...
This is wrong, if you plug a USB 1.1 device into a USB 2.0 "bus" then it does NOT slow everything down. Specifically there are 2 cases:
1. You plug a USB 1.1 device directly into your computer (i.e. directly into the "host controller"). In this case, the USB 2.0 host controller (technically a EHCI chip) does NOT talk to your device. Instead, the EHCI chip has one or more USB 1.1 host controller chips (technically either a OHCI or UHCI chip, and called a "companion" chip when inside a EHCI chip) and your USB 1.1 device is connected electrically to that controller. You device is not on the USB 2.0 (EHCI) bus.
2. You plug a USB 1.1 device into a USB 2.0 hub. In this case, the USB 2.0 hub creates a complete USB 1.1 environment specifically for your device. On the host-facing side of the USB 2.0 hub, all communication continues to take place at USB 2.0 (i.e. 480Mbps) speeds. When the host wants to talk to your USB 1.1 device, it uses what is called "split transactions" to talk to it. Basically (I'm simplifying), this involves sending a "start" packet to the USB 2.0 hub. Then, the USB 2.0 (EHCI) controller goes on to do other things, while the USB 2.0 hub initiates the transfer to your device at USB 1.1 speeds. And data transferred from the USB 1.1 device is stored temporarily in the USB 2.0 hub. Eventually the USB 2.0 (EHCI) host sends a "finish" packet to the USB 2.0 hub. If the USB 1.1 transation finished, the USB 2.0 hub responds successfully (either with the incoming data or a "ack" that the outgoing data was sent) which completes the transation.
(There is also a combination case of those, where the EHCI chip does not contain a "companion" USB 1.1 chip, but instead contains an internal USB 2.0 partial hub - the "transaction translator" part - that handles talking to USB 1.1 devices. For bus usage purposes, this is effectively the same as using an external USB 2.0 hub, since the USB 1.1 devices do not appear on the USB 2.0 bus.)
#!/bin/sh
while (1) {
echo "Get to work, Slacker!";
}
that's definitely from his manager, since that while statement is completely C and won't run under bash at all!
Ah, you mean the 1-second delay. You know, you are really wasting your money by just using the Tivo as a VCR. You should try the service, I think you don't know what you're missing.
Anyway, if you want to bypass the Tivo's buffered recording (i.e. watch TV directly without rewind capability), just watch TV directly. You can get a cable splitter, split the signal coming out of your cable box, and assuming your TV has at least 2 inputs just connect Tivo to one input and your box output to the other. Switch to Tivo only when you want to setup a recording or watch a recorded show.
Although, what I would recommend (besides actually getting service for your Tivo!) is using the Tivo's IR dongle to manage your cable box. Then use the Tivo's remote control to change channels.
I think you are not informed at all on what your Tivo is capable of. You should read the user's guide! If you don't have one, I think you might be able to download them from tivo.com, or at least read some of the FAQ or documentation on tivo.com.
Have you properly shielded your cable box's IR receiver? If your Tivo remote is IR-interfering with the signal that the Tivo sends (via its IR dongle) then channel changing will be mostly unsuccessful. If you read the Tivo instruction manual it shows how to block the cable box's IR receiver so it only gets the Tivo-dongle IR signal, not the secondary conflicting signal from your Tivo remote. Basically just put something opaque in front of the cable box's IR receiver and Tivo IR dongle.
http://nextelbroadband.com
And, for hardware, you can choose between a PCMCIA card (which probably requires Windoze drivers) and a modem with an ethernet port. I assume the modem with ethernet doesn't require any special drivers or software (although that could be a bad assumption).
Check out their "why use Gandi?" page.
Yep, the Oregon State Highway Division already tried that, and it didn't work!
There were living Elves in medieval times? Wow.
Only if it's to report news; news reporting has specific mention in the Fair Use clause. "...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..."
Speechwriters can't lift parts of other people's speeches without permission. Many public speeches however give implict permission to reproduce them, such as most government official's speeches. A private speech, for example a Tony Robbins motivational speech, most certainly can't be re-used by someone else.
True. But by "commercial" I meant non-parody use, i.e. using something in the same way as it was originally created. In this example, Dr Dre used the sampled music in a non-parody commercial way. That's just not legal without permission from the original author.
Sure, but you can't sell anything you've sampled without permission; commercial re-use isn't "Fair Use".
I had something just like this happen to me in college; I was working on a programming assignment, which we had to turn in a hardcopy of the source code for, and I printed out and then threw away a first-draft copy. I was in a computer lab, and the paper recycling bin is right beside the printer. Apparently someone else in my class saw my discarded paper and copied it. When we got the assignments back, the teacher talked to both of us individually, and while the teacher agreed that I hadn't actually given the answers to the other student, I was still guilty of cheating somehow. If I didn't admit to cheating and go to some stupid cheater's rehab class, I would have to face the academic board, which had the power to expel me. The stupidity involved is unbelievable!
Thanks, I guess I shouldn't have posted anonymously ;)
Although I don't think I'd like my employer to know that I wrote it...!
It's gonna be like this, in our job market at least, for a while. Hopefully not too long...!
so why don't you subscribe to /., and then you really might have a better chance of getting first post. Since you (and many, many other AC and logged-in trolls) feel compelled to waste the seemingly endless amounts of free time you have, you might as well help pay the bills for the website whose users and owners you're annoying.
Although, Kazaa hid it from the users, and kept the profits for themselves...
Haha, I like how you twist things around so that it fits your warped view of the world. So corrupt Catholic Priests don't invalidate what they stand for (Catholic religion), only their 'hiring practices'. However, corrupt environmentalists do invaidate everything they stand for (preservation of the environment). It must be nice when you are always right and everyone else is wrong, and you can ignore trivial things like 'facts', 'truth', and 'reality'.
I say, bullshit. An idea can be flawed because of it's leadership and how it's been applied.
You can think whatever you want; you're still wrong. However, you consistently have ignored the truth so far, so all I can suggest is what I've already mentioned, take a course on philosophy or just talk to a philosophy professor.
That's right. However, you're using an example where the idea is (probably) flawed, which makes your position sound more plausible. The idea of Facism stands on its own, and Hitler's actions are completely irrelevant to whether Facism is flawed or not. I'm not familar with the details of Facism, so I can't say whether it is or not, but I do know that an idea must be judged as flawed or not based on the idea, not those who present the idea.
There are plenty of Catholic Priests that molest children. Using your argument, that must mean that the Catholic religion is flawed. Sounds reasonable to me, dood.
Who cares? Go take a basic philosophy class, man. You can't discount an idea because of the actions of its proponents (and in this case, only a small portion of its proponents). Although when talking to the uneducated masses, attacking the person or group (instead of their idea) always a good tactic to use when your position is hopelessly undefendable and their position is so obviously correct. Were you on the defense team for OJ?
Ah, good idea. If you can't dispute what people are saying, then focus on the worst of their crowd, and then you can either, at least, make them all seem like nuts so their position is discredited, or at best, actually convince the general population that you are doing the right thing!
Yep, absolutely true - some environmentalists are getting violent (because previous nonviolent efforts have had little or no effect) so, that must mean they're all crazy and it's perfectly ok to go ahead and clear-cut California! Man, the logic there is unquestionable.
Ain't that the truth. Roddenberry kept a tight rein on the Trek universe, keeping everything consistent and in line with his vision of that universe. It made everyone happy, the true fans who keep track of technical details and other minor stuff like character personalities. Then when he died Hollywood (ahem, Braga) took over and it became a cross between an outer-space soap opera and Western shoot-em-up. Trek universe laws were either downplayed or completely ignored (ahem, Enterprise, it may look 'sexy', but Vulcan chicks don't like to get semi-nude rubdowns, even if it's for "decontamination"...). Character consistency was no longer important, and eventually, with new people and series, character developement was dropped in favor of sex and violence. I mean sure, there was sex and violence in the original series and TNG, but you need a fucking plot and real character development!
I stopped watching after TNG. All the rest have been utter crap, and it pains me to be reminded that they carry the Star Trek name. It is for sure not the same universe.
Mature Redwoods (like the 200+ year old ones being clear cut by Pacific Lumber) will survive even severe forest fires, read this. However no tree can survive Pacific Lumber's chainsaw. Period. And let's not bullshit about whether they are clear-cutting or just 'clearing out dead wood'. Don't insult everyone's intelligence.
Today we have 100 or 200 year fires every year from the crap in the forests that the forest service and loggers can't remove because of environmentalists.
There are regular prescribed fires in the California forests.
But let's see if I understand what you're saying:
- Environmentalists are preventing forest workers (and loggers) from clearing out 'dead wood'.
- Since 'dead wood' is allowed to pile up, it results in unspeakably horrible forest fires worse than any of those seen before.
- If loggers were allowed to clear cut, then we wouldn't have to worry about bad forest fires! Horray loggers!
If you can spare any, I'd like some of the crack that you're smoking, because it's clearly pretty good. Luckily, common sense tells us that since loggers have only been around for the last couple hundred years, and forests have been around a LOT longer than that, those "terrible, terrible fires" have been happening for millions of years. Luckily, we now have what's called "prescribed burns" that help reduce the naturally intense forest fires into several smaller, less dangerous fires. The smaller fires are not prevented by environmentalists, and allow more trees to survive. But even the larger more sever fires don't (usually) kill the ancient Redwood trees. Nope, only Pacific Lumber has managed to do that.It's people like you that are quicking destroying our planet and making this a barren rock with nothing other than Humans, pets, and house-plants. The environmental damage caused by our race in just the last 100 years is absolutely staggering, and the rate of destruction is only increasing. Sad, really.
No it doesn't, at least for the moment (but not for long if Pacific Lumber has their way) it includes giant Redwoods, some of the oldest trees in the world. RTFA before you spew some bullshit about conifers.
However, it's not the RIAA we all love...it's the Rural Internet Access Authority. Oh, the irony! I love it.