Tasks that are trivial under Unix, have thus far eluded me. I still don't know how to set up DNS under Win2K.
"I know how to do it" does not equal "This is trivial."
Setting up DNS on UNIX is quite complex. Whole books have been written on the subject.
Setting up DNS on Windows Server is no more complex than it is on UNIX. Whether it's simpler is a matter for argument. Personally, I think it's much simpler. But at the very least, it's no more complex. Just different.
But let's not talk about things like setting up DNS, a task that one person in a hundred thousand will have to do once every five years. Let's talk about things like sending and receiving instant messages.
buying that product (under false pretenses) is financially harmful to the company that bought them
Wrong. Merely owning the product is not, in and of itself, harmful. Owning a defective product merely presents a potential harm. You haven't actually been harmed, so no compensatory damages can be applied.
I don't see how forcing a company to take a defective product back and returning the purchasers money is "wildy disproportionate."
Well, start with the phrase "forcing to" and see if you can't figure it out.
If I sold computers that didn't work as advertised
I'm sorry, but at what point did we start talking about things that "didn't work as advertised?" Netgear made no such assurances. In fact, I'm quite certain that they indemnified themselves thoroughly.
If they can't fix the product, then buying back every single unit IS compensatory.
Uh, no. "Compensatory damages" are monies paid out in compensation for harm. That is, the damages cover the cost to the harmed party associated with the harm.
Compensatory damages don't involve "buying back" anything. And forcing a vendor to "buy back" product would be wildly disproportionate to the harm.
This would more likely be a civil case, and IMO Netgear should be required to buy back every single unit.
No, that wouldn't be just. Compensatory damages: sure. Punative damages? Doubtful. But forcing them to do something like that? Forget it. That'd be completely outside the realm of justice or equity.
Why on EARTH is this not literally considered a criminal offense for a company to do?
Just how many criminal laws do you think we need? Seriously. Do you think we need another one?
There's no doubt in my mind that the vendor would be held liable for damages if anybody were harmed--financially I mean--by this kind of thing. But should somebody really go to jail over it?
The challenge here isn't bandwidth management. Hell, you can do HDTV in about 15 Mbps, which is well within what single-channel 802.11g can deliver reliably. (Dual-channel, at 108 Mbps, is even better.) The challenge is how to make the decoder cheap, fast, and small. They did it with AirPort Express by making it very simple: the audio transmitted via AirTunes is encoded in real time with Apple Lossless and encrypted on the Mac, then decrypted and decoded by the AirPort Express. Simple and easy. When they figure out how to do the same thing with HDTV, they'll have it.
4K x 3K is sufficient for present day TV-oriented applications, but it's not necessarily getting all the data out of the film.
Have you ever actually looked at a 4K frame? I mean, have you ever actually zoomed in on a DPX frame and looked at it? You're not pulling out useful data. You're pulling out film noise.
To capture all the detail in the film in digital form, you have to scan at double the spatial frequency for the smallest grain size in the film.
Blah blah blah. That's very nice in theoretical terms, but it has nothing to do with real life. What does the oh-so-maligned Nyquist frequency have to do with, for instance, whether you're doing datacine on an IP or an IN?
Bottom line here: you are talking about theoretical knowledge that does not apply to datacine.
Please stop talking about scanning printed material and 8x10 art negatives. We're talking about 35 mm motion picture film.
35mm movie film has an effective resolution better than 7200x4800
Oh, don't be absurd. If you scan a single frame of Super 35 at anything higher than 4K (4096x3112), you're just scanning noise. For all commercial applications short of digital mastering, 2K is as high as you need to go (2048x1556).
As I understand it, refresh frequencies are normally chosen to be harmonic with the power supply frequency in order to simplify noise suppression circuitry
No, it's really much simpler than that. In order to refresh a scanning CRT at a given rate, you have to have a clock that runs at that rate. To keep TV's cheap and simple, they left out the clock and synchronized the vertical scan to the incoming AC. Which, in the US, was 60 Hz, and in the Commonwealth and Europe was 50 Hz.
When color came along, everything changed, because the vertical sync frequency had to be an even multiple of the base carrier signal. That's how we got 59.98 Hz for color NTSC. HDTV suck with 59.98 for compatibility reasons, and because it's no better or worse than any other frequency.
Computer monitors were the first to have the resolutions that HDTV now has
Hmm. I don't think that's really right. I saw my first 1920x1200 monitor in the mid-1990's, which was well after HDTV became commercially available. (It wasn't cheap or abundant, but it was available.) Before that, 1280x1024 was pretty much the most common resolution, or 1600x1200 if you liked to squint. (21" CRT's can't really resolve that many pixels; they get fuzzy.)
In this particular case, the TV's beat the computer folks to the punch.
Yes, remember kids: your loyalty to your home country only goes as far as the kind of TV they have. Don't be afraid to forsake your citizenship to get a better programming package!
Good grief. Your lack of understanding of the mechanics of vision is daunting to me.
Visual acuity isn't measured in points per inch, for obvious reasons: there's a third dimension to deal with. Visual acuity is measured in arcseconds. How many seconds of arc have to be occluded before your eye can resolve the spot?
The most-often-repeated statistic is that 20/20 vision can resolve about one arcminute, or 60 arcseconds, or 1/60th of a degree. How much is that in terms of inches? It depends on how far away the focus plane is from the eye. The trigonometry is left as an exercise for the reader.
For your homework, consider this: you read a fax by holding it 8-12 inches away from your eyes. You watch a movie by sitting 60-100 feet from the screen. Compare and contrast.
The Nikon D70 and the Canon EOS-300D ("digital rebel"; whatever, Canon) are pretty comparable camera bodies, but the kicker is the lens. You can buy either one with a bundled lens; the 300D comes with a crappy lens, while the D70 comes with a very respectable lens.
Definitely get the D70. If you get the 300D and find you enjoy photography, you'll want to replace it in a year or two. If you get the D70 and find you enjoy photography, you'll be happy with it for much longer.
And because the D70 is newer, the resale price will be better if you decide to bail out.
Why did we do it [fancy graphics *everywhere*]? Because we could.
You're thinking of the rotating-cube effect that comes with fast user switching. Apple's approach there was basically, "Microsoft came up with a neat idea, so we stole it from them. But we made it prettier and cooler just because we can." Apple's customers seemed to like that a lot.
And, truly, it has no significant overhead. If you're on a machine that can handle the 3-D effect, it happens. Smoothly. Never stutters. If you're on a machine that can't handle it, you get a fade-out/fade-in effect instead. Also cool, also very smooth, just not 3-D.
Note that the subject of that sentence in my comment is 'he', refering to the person asking the question, and not 'they,' which is what I would have written were I saying the headphones worked improperly. Luckily for you this isn't an SAT question.
Holy cow, you're a dick.
Yes, I misunderstood your statement. I assumed "he" was a typo for "they," since you were talking about the behavior of your headphones.
Maybe you need to read your own post and wonder why you were misunderstood.
No, that's exactly what the headphones should do. It's just that you and the headphones have different ideas of what constitutes signal and what constitutes noise.
Sounds like you're not looking for headphones. Sounds like you're looking for earplugs.
The simple answer to this is for the "repressed" groups to start their own blog / community.
No. Wrong. That's no more the answer than the answer is to send all the black people back to Africa or to send all the Democrats to France.
Pluralism is a virtue. The simple answer is for people with moderation points to realize that it's not up to them to decide which posts they agree or disagree with. The simple answer is for people with power and influence to realize it's not up to them to decide who gets to be heard.
The problem with sites like those mentioned is what they call the purple monkey syndrome. Take a monkey from a social group and dye his fur purple. When you put him back, the other monkeys will throw him out of the tree. Because he's different.
This behavior can most distinctly be seen on Metafilter, a site I don't even bother to participate in. If you are not (1) radically liberal and (2) distastefully sarcastic, you are not welcome there. As soon as your opinions become known, your remarks, no matter what the topic, will be met with derision and hostility.
This is both not as bad and much worse on Slashdot. It's not as bad because there's more diversity of opinion here, but it's much worse because Slashdot's "moderation" system makes it possible for unpopular opinions to be literally silenced, pushing them down below the threshold of visibility.
Collaborative content sites quickly become exclusive oligarchies.
I remember hearing a few years ago that the folks who ran tick and tock asked that only second-tier time servers sync to them, and that all the "leaf nodes" sync to a second-tier server. That's why I don't use tick or tock any more.
Slashdot Mirror
Tasks that are trivial under Unix, have thus far eluded me. I still don't know how to set up DNS under Win2K.
"I know how to do it" does not equal "This is trivial."
Setting up DNS on UNIX is quite complex. Whole books have been written on the subject.
Setting up DNS on Windows Server is no more complex than it is on UNIX. Whether it's simpler is a matter for argument. Personally, I think it's much simpler. But at the very least, it's no more complex. Just different.
But let's not talk about things like setting up DNS, a task that one person in a hundred thousand will have to do once every five years. Let's talk about things like sending and receiving instant messages.
buying that product (under false pretenses) is financially harmful to the company that bought them
Wrong. Merely owning the product is not, in and of itself, harmful. Owning a defective product merely presents a potential harm. You haven't actually been harmed, so no compensatory damages can be applied.
I don't see how forcing a company to take a defective product back and returning the purchasers money is "wildy disproportionate."
Well, start with the phrase "forcing to" and see if you can't figure it out.
If I sold computers that didn't work as advertised
I'm sorry, but at what point did we start talking about things that "didn't work as advertised?" Netgear made no such assurances. In fact, I'm quite certain that they indemnified themselves thoroughly.
If they can't fix the product, then buying back every single unit IS compensatory.
Uh, no. "Compensatory damages" are monies paid out in compensation for harm. That is, the damages cover the cost to the harmed party associated with the harm.
Compensatory damages don't involve "buying back" anything. And forcing a vendor to "buy back" product would be wildly disproportionate to the harm.
This would more likely be a civil case, and IMO Netgear should be required to buy back every single unit.
No, that wouldn't be just. Compensatory damages: sure. Punative damages? Doubtful. But forcing them to do something like that? Forget it. That'd be completely outside the realm of justice or equity.
Why on EARTH is this not literally considered a criminal offense for a company to do?
Just how many criminal laws do you think we need? Seriously. Do you think we need another one?
There's no doubt in my mind that the vendor would be held liable for damages if anybody were harmed--financially I mean--by this kind of thing. But should somebody really go to jail over it?
Geez. And I thought I was a fascist.
11g doesn't work well for movie streaming
The challenge here isn't bandwidth management. Hell, you can do HDTV in about 15 Mbps, which is well within what single-channel 802.11g can deliver reliably. (Dual-channel, at 108 Mbps, is even better.) The challenge is how to make the decoder cheap, fast, and small. They did it with AirPort Express by making it very simple: the audio transmitted via AirTunes is encoded in real time with Apple Lossless and encrypted on the Mac, then decrypted and decoded by the AirPort Express. Simple and easy. When they figure out how to do the same thing with HDTV, they'll have it.
Don't doubt for a second that it can be done.
4K x 3K is sufficient for present day TV-oriented applications, but it's not necessarily getting all the data out of the film.
Have you ever actually looked at a 4K frame? I mean, have you ever actually zoomed in on a DPX frame and looked at it? You're not pulling out useful data. You're pulling out film noise.
To capture all the detail in the film in digital form, you have to scan at double the spatial frequency for the smallest grain size in the film.
Blah blah blah. That's very nice in theoretical terms, but it has nothing to do with real life. What does the oh-so-maligned Nyquist frequency have to do with, for instance, whether you're doing datacine on an IP or an IN?
Bottom line here: you are talking about theoretical knowledge that does not apply to datacine.
Please stop talking about scanning printed material and 8x10 art negatives. We're talking about 35 mm motion picture film.
35mm movie film has an effective resolution better than 7200x4800
Oh, don't be absurd. If you scan a single frame of Super 35 at anything higher than 4K (4096x3112), you're just scanning noise. For all commercial applications short of digital mastering, 2K is as high as you need to go (2048x1556).
As I understand it, refresh frequencies are normally chosen to be harmonic with the power supply frequency in order to simplify noise suppression circuitry
No, it's really much simpler than that. In order to refresh a scanning CRT at a given rate, you have to have a clock that runs at that rate. To keep TV's cheap and simple, they left out the clock and synchronized the vertical scan to the incoming AC. Which, in the US, was 60 Hz, and in the Commonwealth and Europe was 50 Hz.
When color came along, everything changed, because the vertical sync frequency had to be an even multiple of the base carrier signal. That's how we got 59.98 Hz for color NTSC. HDTV suck with 59.98 for compatibility reasons, and because it's no better or worse than any other frequency.
Computer monitors were the first to have the resolutions that HDTV now has
Hmm. I don't think that's really right. I saw my first 1920x1200 monitor in the mid-1990's, which was well after HDTV became commercially available. (It wasn't cheap or abundant, but it was available.) Before that, 1280x1024 was pretty much the most common resolution, or 1600x1200 if you liked to squint. (21" CRT's can't really resolve that many pixels; they get fuzzy.)
In this particular case, the TV's beat the computer folks to the punch.
Yes, remember kids: your loyalty to your home country only goes as far as the kind of TV they have. Don't be afraid to forsake your citizenship to get a better programming package!
Numbskull.
Good grief. Your lack of understanding of the mechanics of vision is daunting to me.
Visual acuity isn't measured in points per inch, for obvious reasons: there's a third dimension to deal with. Visual acuity is measured in arcseconds. How many seconds of arc have to be occluded before your eye can resolve the spot?
The most-often-repeated statistic is that 20/20 vision can resolve about one arcminute, or 60 arcseconds, or 1/60th of a degree. How much is that in terms of inches? It depends on how far away the focus plane is from the eye. The trigonometry is left as an exercise for the reader.
For your homework, consider this: you read a fax by holding it 8-12 inches away from your eyes. You watch a movie by sitting 60-100 feet from the screen. Compare and contrast.
We're about a decade away from reaching the point
It took about forty years to take HDTV from the lab to a commercial product. (Development first started on it at NHK in 1964.)
I don't think we're "about a decade away" from anything like that.
The Nikon D70 and the Canon EOS-300D ("digital rebel"; whatever, Canon) are pretty comparable camera bodies, but the kicker is the lens. You can buy either one with a bundled lens; the 300D comes with a crappy lens, while the D70 comes with a very respectable lens.
Definitely get the D70. If you get the 300D and find you enjoy photography, you'll want to replace it in a year or two. If you get the D70 and find you enjoy photography, you'll be happy with it for much longer.
And because the D70 is newer, the resale price will be better if you decide to bail out.
Why did we do it [fancy graphics *everywhere*]? Because we could.
You're thinking of the rotating-cube effect that comes with fast user switching. Apple's approach there was basically, "Microsoft came up with a neat idea, so we stole it from them. But we made it prettier and cooler just because we can." Apple's customers seemed to like that a lot.
And, truly, it has no significant overhead. If you're on a machine that can handle the 3-D effect, it happens. Smoothly. Never stutters. If you're on a machine that can't handle it, you get a fade-out/fade-in effect instead. Also cool, also very smooth, just not 3-D.
Note that the subject of that sentence in my comment is 'he', refering to the person asking the question, and not 'they,' which is what I would have written were I saying the headphones worked improperly. Luckily for you this isn't an SAT question.
Holy cow, you're a dick.
Yes, I misunderstood your statement. I assumed "he" was a typo for "they," since you were talking about the behavior of your headphones.
Maybe you need to read your own post and wonder why you were misunderstood.
No, that's exactly what the headphones should do. It's just that you and the headphones have different ideas of what constitutes signal and what constitutes noise.
Sounds like you're not looking for headphones. Sounds like you're looking for earplugs.
Did you go and look at the product?
Absolutely not.
These have been around for several years.
They must suck. Because they're not at all popular.
The simple answer to this is for the "repressed" groups to start their own blog / community.
No. Wrong. That's no more the answer than the answer is to send all the black people back to Africa or to send all the Democrats to France.
Pluralism is a virtue. The simple answer is for people with moderation points to realize that it's not up to them to decide which posts they agree or disagree with. The simple answer is for people with power and influence to realize it's not up to them to decide who gets to be heard.
Back when /. was a painfully ugly site to look at as well.
My, how things have... changed?
The problem with sites like those mentioned is what they call the purple monkey syndrome. Take a monkey from a social group and dye his fur purple. When you put him back, the other monkeys will throw him out of the tree. Because he's different.
:-)
This behavior can most distinctly be seen on Metafilter, a site I don't even bother to participate in. If you are not (1) radically liberal and (2) distastefully sarcastic, you are not welcome there. As soon as your opinions become known, your remarks, no matter what the topic, will be met with derision and hostility.
This is both not as bad and much worse on Slashdot. It's not as bad because there's more diversity of opinion here, but it's much worse because Slashdot's "moderation" system makes it possible for unpopular opinions to be literally silenced, pushing them down below the threshold of visibility.
Collaborative content sites quickly become exclusive oligarchies.
Down with democracy.
If one point six billion users say the same thing, is it still "not much load on them?"
You are not special. You do not get to be an exception to the rules.
You have nothing interesting to say.
We're done here.
I remember hearing a few years ago that the folks who ran tick and tock asked that only second-tier time servers sync to them, and that all the "leaf nodes" sync to a second-tier server. That's why I don't use tick or tock any more.
Not everyone has such an NTP server available
Yeah, you do. Just use time.apple.com.