A ping of 1 milli-second is ALOT slower
than the speed of light , the routing
a switching and packet opening and
re-encapsulation is your time killer.
Hmm... let's do some math:
Say we have 10 000 km from europe to the USA and light travels with about 330 000 km/s ->
10 000 km / 330 000 km/s = 0.030s = 30ms
And that is just one way... take it twice and you have your ping.
Maybe you could make a hole through the earth to shorten the way;)
Routers etc. should not add much to the latency... maybe 1 or 2ms, not more.
But seriously... it will never happen to do "real realtime" worldwide applications or mega-fast-fat-networks with low latency. It is time to invent "light2" - man, light is so slow:)
I wonder how one could make an mpeg or avi out of the quicktime movies.
It annoys me very much everytime i want to download a movie, seeing it is quicktime. Quicktime(player) is a bit bloated IMO and besides that i really hate the curved interface, no real fullscreen and so on:)
And yes, i don't like media which can't be displayed under linux that much:)
Some friends of mine and myself had the idea to somehow convert the mov (preferably under linux), using transcode/wine/whatever, capturing the data and recompressing it in mpeg/whatever.
(and making it available to our LAN via fileserver or some kind of _nice_ video streaming)
If i remember correctly, some time ago i read about someone who was able to see quicktime mov's in linux using transcode/wine on the netscape qt plugins.
Now we just have to capture the data, but how?
[be careful: just an (bad) idea]
I wonder if it would be rational and working to capture a specific rectangle where the video is displayed, doing a single-picture-capture whenever something changes (which should happen 25 times a second or so...).
I wouldn't even mind if the resulting recompressed mpeg would be 5 times bigger, space doesn't matter to me as long as the clip is not too long. (ever seen a dvdrip in quicktime? no? me neither).
Any Ideas?
Or does there maybe even exist an implementation this?
The question is how you could actually "hurt" the moon.
As there is no atmosphere or nature we know about, there is not much to destroy left IMHO.
Only atomic/biological/chemical weapon tests could make it a worse place (and prevent any future of civilizing the moon in the future).
Re:we never landed on the moon (offtopic)
on
Mining On The Moon
·
· Score: 1
We have sent up satellites in our orbit (and i can prove this by pointing a satellite dish in the correct direction) -
why shouldn't we be able to go a bit further and land on the moon?
If I remember correctly, he had to let delete some of his data in brain (his childhood) to have more space (or to have free space at all?).
There was no harddrive IMO.
I guess that is rather biological.
(And he could store 80 GB of raw data, with his compressor he could store 160 - and he was overloaded with a full 320 GB.:-)
I wonder if the brain could be used as a data store like in the movie Johnny Mnemonic - i guess it could be used to store information in a lossy way, like images.
I always wanted to have a big portable space when going to a friend to exchange data:)
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... let's do some math: Say we have 10 000 km from europe to the USA and light travels with about 330 000 km/s ->
10 000 km / 330 000 km/s = 0.030s = 30ms
And that is just one way... take it twice and you have your ping.
Maybe you could make a hole through the earth to shorten the way ;)
Routers etc. should not add much to the latency... maybe 1 or 2ms, not more.
But seriously... it will never happen to do "real realtime" worldwide applications or mega-fast-fat-networks with low latency. It is time to invent "light2" - man, light is so slow :)
I wonder how one could make an mpeg or avi out of the quicktime movies.
:)
:)
It annoys me very much everytime i want to download a movie, seeing it is quicktime. Quicktime(player) is a bit bloated IMO and besides that i really hate the curved interface, no real fullscreen and so on
And yes, i don't like media which can't be displayed under linux that much
Some friends of mine and myself had the idea to somehow convert the mov (preferably under linux), using transcode/wine/whatever, capturing the data and recompressing it in mpeg/whatever.
(and making it available to our LAN via fileserver or some kind of _nice_ video streaming)
If i remember correctly, some time ago i read about someone who was able to see quicktime mov's in linux using transcode/wine on the netscape qt plugins.
Now we just have to capture the data, but how?
[be careful: just an (bad) idea]
I wonder if it would be rational and working to capture a specific rectangle where the video is displayed, doing a single-picture-capture whenever something changes (which should happen 25 times a second or so...).
I wouldn't even mind if the resulting recompressed mpeg would be 5 times bigger, space doesn't matter to me as long as the clip is not too long. (ever seen a dvdrip in quicktime? no? me neither).
Any Ideas?
Or does there maybe even exist an implementation this?
But how would you prevent the capsules to melt when they dive into the atmosphere?
They will need a rather expensive (carbon?) shielding, thus rendering the system useless as the shielding might get damaged when "landing" on earth.
And you have to get the shielding up to the moon again (i guess it would not be possible to produce it up there). Hmm... very expensive system.
But i agress, for the rare metals here on earth it might even be useful or necessary.
The question is how you could actually "hurt" the moon.
As there is no atmosphere or nature we know about, there is not much to destroy left IMHO.
Only atomic/biological/chemical weapon tests could make it a worse place (and prevent any future of civilizing the moon in the future).
We have sent up satellites in our orbit (and i can prove this by pointing a satellite dish in the correct direction) -
why shouldn't we be able to go a bit further and land on the moon?
If I remember correctly, he had to let delete some of his data in brain (his childhood) to have more space (or to have free space at all?). There was no harddrive IMO. I guess that is rather biological. (And he could store 80 GB of raw data, with his compressor he could store 160 - and he was overloaded with a full 320 GB. :-)
I wonder if the brain could be used as a data store like in the movie Johnny Mnemonic - i guess it could be used to store information in a lossy way, like images. I always wanted to have a big portable space when going to a friend to exchange data :)