There was also an edge style connector out the back that was used as a parallel port for the printer we had. I seem to recall that was the faster option.
I second the HP terminal keyboard as one of the best ever. I visited an HP salesman at the time when I had a CoCo II and that thing was was fantastic. The keyboard of the Coco II was very good for it's time as well. What I miss is that back then you had to hit the key just right for it to register. I am using a spongy Dell keyboard right now. And when I had to capitalize the W two sentences back my hand shifted a bit and I got 'QW' instead of just W. There was no way back then to hit a key on the side and have it register back then.
I simply use a sharpie to label them and I keep them in a draw string pouch in a drawer nearby the TV when not in use. I keep the card reader in there too.
I mentioned below some suggestions, but I forgot about one other thing until I recorded some TV last night. It could be the the VHS tape. I got some color and luminance modulation and then I put in a new tape and used that. Then everything is fine. Possibly your grandmother has been using the same VHS tape for two years or so. After a while the tape gets worn out and stretched and that can cause this effect as well.
It does not sound like macrovision unless the VCR is from the mid '80s to early '90s (before everyone started using the same system for AGC). With macrovision you only see a color image about 5% of the time, then B&W for about 10% and then it is so dark you can hardly see a thing with the AGC scheme that has been in common use on VCRs for the last 15 years or so.
I simply think that the converter box or cables are of very poor quality. I've seen this happen with cable boxes in the past. Try shorter better RCA cables or plug the ANT OUT of the converter box into the ANT IN of the VCR and the ANT OUT of the VCR into the TV ANT IN.
Yes I know, I have fiddled with that as much as I could and I still cannot replicate under D2 this behavior.
Early on in a story you tend to get a bunch of trolls, rants, obvious, wrong, and just plain inane comments. So say there are a bunch of comments like this where A- E order them via time of post:
troll A ..inane B ....insightful E
insightful C ..insightful D
Under the old system with nested and my bonus and limits the way I had them set-up what would display is this:
insightful C ..insightful D
insightful E
Under D2 I get this:
insightful E
insightful C ..insightful D
Is there a way to get that back?
Also it would be neat if there was an option for different thresholds when you clicked on a comment, so that I could open it in a new tab with everything expanded. I rather liked that old check box 'save settings' now when I slide those two sliders around in D2 it always remembers it.
I'm using a web browser with tabs not a new reader.
Yeah I knew about those, I don't much like all the pressing of keys rather than simply scrolling in an interesting discussion with them all open in a new tab.
Actually I think it is I cannot sort stories as highest ranked first anymore with the new discussion system. That makes a bunch of rants and trolls intersperse with the real discussion. I think a bunch of the insightful posters of the past simply stopped posting due to the signal to noise ratio falling.
Also I liked to open a new tab with all the comments under a post and then open them all to read the whole discussion. Now I have to use that slider over and over again or click like I am on Ritalin.
Finally I used to pick my mods from the drop down and then go back and pick the best. Now it takes it immediately, even when I let go of the mouse on the wrong selection.
Yes and my wife and I both played Cytron Masters an even earlier game on an Atari. I looked it up in Wikipedia and it is listed as RTS. Someone below mentions Modem Wars and that was definitely RTS. It is so often that these origins types of articles completely miss the earlier examples.
Do you have any evidence to support that opinion? Look the DOE is great at running big science projects. Ones that involve tunnels, cryo, massive underground detectors, etc. The DOE almost always does it under budget and on time (the big disaster was the SSC but that fell apart because of politics from the Congress and president). Compare that to the record of the NSF and NASA. NASA is great at large projects at well, but the project management comes in over budget and late more than 50% of the time and anytime the NSF has done anything big approaching the scale of medium DOE, it has always been late and over budget.
If it was not for the DOE big physics outside of astro and cosmo would be run by the military and NSF. Finally the office of science is only one aspect of the DOE.
Not allowing int breaks making a debugger simply. Most VMs are vulnerable to a cpuid bug that is a security vulnerabilty waiting to happen. It does not and probably never will work on Vista due to missing vm syscalls used to create the sandbox.
UDP is a very bad protocol to use for mass transmission. There is no built-in feedback loop.
Not having built-in congestion control does not necessarily make it a bad protocol for bulk transfer.
I could see timestamps being used to figure-out latency and bandwidth instead of TCP window sizes changed based on packet loss. This could be much nicer for routers.
Also with a simple approach one socket and UDP port could be used per client. This would make it a whole lot easier for the OS and NAT.
And they have in very rural and metro areas but not as much as they should have in the rest of the country. So let's say in my opinion they are half to blame on this front.
The problem is that p2p rapidly consumes all of the available bandwidth. Even if the capacity had been increased a thousand fold, in six months to a year we would be right back at the same problem where we were before.
But I have seen people argue that they the average users would still use the same amount of bandwidth, but I do not think so. There would be more flash and streaming video on the internet. There would be more people using VOIP, NetFlix, downloading movies and TV shows from iTunes, the Xbox video market place, the PS3, and there would be more people downloading video games.
Soon we would be right where we started where the average users would again be complaining that they not getting a fair share do to the massive increase of p2p bandwidth. The average users would no longer be content with simply email and web browsing when they had 'new improved faster internet' and would expect all those other things I outlined to work flawlessly.
The ISP sees that you are accepting connections on port 80, assumes that is a web server, points to the 'no servers' clause in the T&Cs, and after a month they are no longer your ISP.
When you look at the pattern of connections to port 80 for a web server vs a BT there are at least two glaring ways to quickly see that this is not normal web traffic so the "80 Hole" is not much of an effective disguise.
There are very reasonable technical issues to resolve regarding using multicast on a wide scale. First who would decide how to divide-up the multicast address space? For some thing like BT you would need them to be ephemeral in a sense. The planned solution to get multicast adopted in a general case was to use IPv6, but that has not been widely adopted.
The other problem is with IGMP which is used by routers to communicate between each other what multicast streams to pass between each other. For something like BT where the addresses to subscribe to would be changing frequently that in itself would be a tremendous amount of traffic. Also in the case of IPv6 that would be some gigantic tables that routers would need to maintain. If that was not enough there are serious DOS issues to contend with as well.
That is a very nice explanation, but the problem is that until outside people get a chance to look over their ideas about congestion control the door is open to this sort of FUD be it valid or not. The concern is that some other BT client could abuse this new uTP to use unfair amounts of bandwidth and that concern cannot be addressed until people know more about the details.
The problem is that p2p seems to be insatiable. It devours what ever amount of bandwidth that is thrown at it. So when you spend considerable sums of money to improve the infrastructure and then you have the same exact problem four months later, what do you do next?
You have power but what about the computer room and office space rent? What about the other utilities and services like shredding and janitorial? Also where are the taxes and fees that you need to pay as a business, that $300,000 per year won't cover it for the number of employees you will need with a 30K customer base. The rule of thumb is to add 50%, you can be stingy at 35% but then you will not have enough benefits to attract good employees. What about capital expenses? You are going to need desktops, pagers, phones, desks chairs, etc. Where is your legal department, you know how much a firm on retainer costs right? And what about marketing, you do what to be able to get those customers at some point to begin with.
No, it's just that your app can pretend that it does. It does not need to resend anything, the TCP stack will keep retrying until it times-out. Try it for yourself, ssh into a box, then turn off said box. After a while you will get a connection timed-out. TCP does not guarantee delivery. Instead it will try hard to send and receive everything without your intervention and if you do run into real trouble, you'll find-out about it.
It gives you everything to make sure some packet arrives in time, if it's fragmented and arrives in the wrong order it's reassembled and all the other little bits that are quite useful when you're normally transfering data.
TCP does nothing to guarantee any timing worth a damn. In the case you mentioned (a dropped fragment) everything on that socket is likely to hold-up for 25 seconds. Also all that fragment handling stuff, it's in the IP layer. You get that in UDP as well
Slashdot Mirror
There was also an edge style connector out the back that was used as a parallel port for the printer we had. I seem to recall that was the faster option.
I second the HP terminal keyboard as one of the best ever. I visited an HP salesman at the time when I had a CoCo II and that thing was was fantastic. The keyboard of the Coco II was very good for it's time as well. What I miss is that back then you had to hit the key just right for it to register. I am using a spongy Dell keyboard right now. And when I had to capitalize the W two sentences back my hand shifted a bit and I got 'QW' instead of just W. There was no way back then to hit a key on the side and have it register back then.
I simply use a sharpie to label them and I keep them in a draw string pouch in a drawer nearby the TV when not in use. I keep the card reader in there too.
I mentioned below some suggestions, but I forgot about one other thing until I recorded some TV last night. It could be the the VHS tape. I got some color and luminance modulation and then I put in a new tape and used that. Then everything is fine. Possibly your grandmother has been using the same VHS tape for two years or so. After a while the tape gets worn out and stretched and that can cause this effect as well.
It does not sound like macrovision unless the VCR is from the mid '80s to early '90s (before everyone started using the same system for AGC). With macrovision you only see a color image about 5% of the time, then B&W for about 10% and then it is so dark you can hardly see a thing with the AGC scheme that has been in common use on VCRs for the last 15 years or so.
I simply think that the converter box or cables are of very poor quality. I've seen this happen with cable boxes in the past. Try shorter better RCA cables or plug the ANT OUT of the converter box into the ANT IN of the VCR and the ANT OUT of the VCR into the TV ANT IN.
Yes I know, I have fiddled with that as much as I could and I still cannot replicate under D2 this behavior.
Early on in a story you tend to get a bunch of trolls, rants, obvious, wrong, and just plain inane comments. So say there are a bunch of comments like this where A- E order them via time of post:
troll A
..inane B
....insightful E
insightful C
..insightful D
Under the old system with nested and my bonus and limits the way I had them set-up what would display is this:
insightful C
..insightful D
insightful E
Under D2 I get this:
insightful E
insightful C
..insightful D
Is there a way to get that back?
Also it would be neat if there was an option for different thresholds when you clicked on a comment, so that I could open it in a new tab with everything expanded. I rather liked that old check box 'save settings' now when I slide those two sliders around in D2 it always remembers it.
I'm using a web browser with tabs not a new reader.
Yeah I knew about those, I don't much like all the pressing of keys rather than simply scrolling in an interesting discussion with them all open in a new tab.
Actually I think it is I cannot sort stories as highest ranked first anymore with the new discussion system. That makes a bunch of rants and trolls intersperse with the real discussion. I think a bunch of the insightful posters of the past simply stopped posting due to the signal to noise ratio falling.
Also I liked to open a new tab with all the comments under a post and then open them all to read the whole discussion. Now I have to use that slider over and over again or click like I am on Ritalin.
Finally I used to pick my mods from the drop down and then go back and pick the best. Now it takes it immediately, even when I let go of the mouse on the wrong selection.
The Wii initially had an interesting problem. It would suck in the SD card if you put it in the slot load drive.
Yes and my wife and I both played Cytron Masters an even earlier game on an Atari. I looked it up in Wikipedia and it is listed as RTS. Someone below mentions Modem Wars and that was definitely RTS. It is so often that these origins types of articles completely miss the earlier examples.
Do you have any evidence to support that opinion? Look the DOE is great at running big science projects. Ones that involve tunnels, cryo, massive underground detectors, etc. The DOE almost always does it under budget and on time (the big disaster was the SSC but that fell apart because of politics from the Congress and president). Compare that to the record of the NSF and NASA. NASA is great at large projects at well, but the project management comes in over budget and late more than 50% of the time and anytime the NSF has done anything big approaching the scale of medium DOE, it has always been late and over budget.
If it was not for the DOE big physics outside of astro and cosmo would be run by the military and NSF. Finally the office of science is only one aspect of the DOE.
He's the director of LBNL, he has dealt with his fair share of political BS.
Not allowing int breaks making a debugger simply. Most VMs are vulnerable to a cpuid bug that is a security vulnerabilty waiting to happen. It does not and probably never will work on Vista due to missing vm syscalls used to create the sandbox.
Uh no, I have firefox 3 on a 2 GHz P4 running XP SP2 with the latest version of Silverlight and the Netflix streaming works fine.
Yeah I don't have readline support either, pyconfig.h shows that configure found it all, so I don't get it.
It's definitely the meds:
If you want the newline:
perl: print "hello world\n";
py3k: print("hello world")
If you don't want the new line:
perl: print "name: "
py3k: print("name: ", end="") #WTF
UDP is a very bad protocol to use for mass transmission. There is no built-in feedback loop.
Not having built-in congestion control does not necessarily make it a bad protocol for bulk transfer.
I could see timestamps being used to figure-out latency and bandwidth instead of TCP window sizes changed based on packet loss. This could be much nicer for routers.
Also with a simple approach one socket and UDP port could be used per client. This would make it a whole lot easier for the OS and NAT.
And they have in very rural and metro areas but not as much as they should have in the rest of the country. So let's say in my opinion they are half to blame on this front.
The problem is that p2p rapidly consumes all of the available bandwidth. Even if the capacity had been increased a thousand fold, in six months to a year we would be right back at the same problem where we were before.
But I have seen people argue that they the average users would still use the same amount of bandwidth, but I do not think so. There would be more flash and streaming video on the internet. There would be more people using VOIP, NetFlix, downloading movies and TV shows from iTunes, the Xbox video market place, the PS3, and there would be more people downloading video games.
Soon we would be right where we started where the average users would again be complaining that they not getting a fair share do to the massive increase of p2p bandwidth. The average users would no longer be content with simply email and web browsing when they had 'new improved faster internet' and would expect all those other things I outlined to work flawlessly.
Two points:
The ISP sees that you are accepting connections on port 80, assumes that is a web server, points to the 'no servers' clause in the T&Cs, and after a month they are no longer your ISP.
When you look at the pattern of connections to port 80 for a web server vs a BT there are at least two glaring ways to quickly see that this is not normal web traffic so the "80 Hole" is not much of an effective disguise.
The problem is that they would need to do it with raw sockets as or install strange kernel extensions for the most common OSs.
There are very reasonable technical issues to resolve regarding using multicast on a wide scale. First who would decide how to divide-up the multicast address space? For some thing like BT you would need them to be ephemeral in a sense. The planned solution to get multicast adopted in a general case was to use IPv6, but that has not been widely adopted.
The other problem is with IGMP which is used by routers to communicate between each other what multicast streams to pass between each other. For something like BT where the addresses to subscribe to would be changing frequently that in itself would be a tremendous amount of traffic. Also in the case of IPv6 that would be some gigantic tables that routers would need to maintain. If that was not enough there are serious DOS issues to contend with as well.
That is a very nice explanation, but the problem is that until outside people get a chance to look over their ideas about congestion control the door is open to this sort of FUD be it valid or not. The concern is that some other BT client could abuse this new uTP to use unfair amounts of bandwidth and that concern cannot be addressed until people know more about the details.
The problem is that p2p seems to be insatiable. It devours what ever amount of bandwidth that is thrown at it. So when you spend considerable sums of money to improve the infrastructure and then you have the same exact problem four months later, what do you do next?
You have power but what about the computer room and office space rent? What about the other utilities and services like shredding and janitorial? Also where are the taxes and fees that you need to pay as a business, that $300,000 per year won't cover it for the number of employees you will need with a 30K customer base. The rule of thumb is to add 50%, you can be stingy at 35% but then you will not have enough benefits to attract good employees. What about capital expenses? You are going to need desktops, pagers, phones, desks chairs, etc. Where is your legal department, you know how much a firm on retainer costs right? And what about marketing, you do what to be able to get those customers at some point to begin with.
Not so rosey is it...
TCP enforces and faciliates delivery certainty.
No, it's just that your app can pretend that it does. It does not need to resend anything, the TCP stack will keep retrying until it times-out. Try it for yourself, ssh into a box, then turn off said box. After a while you will get a connection timed-out. TCP does not guarantee delivery. Instead it will try hard to send and receive everything without your intervention and if you do run into real trouble, you'll find-out about it.
It gives you everything to make sure some packet arrives in time, if it's fragmented and arrives in the wrong order it's reassembled and all the other little bits that are quite useful when you're normally transfering data.
TCP does nothing to guarantee any timing worth a damn. In the case you mentioned (a dropped fragment) everything on that socket is likely to hold-up for 25 seconds. Also all that fragment handling stuff, it's in the IP layer. You get that in UDP as well