My board with a SavagePro SUCKS ASS. I can't stand it's dark picture, or the horrible washed out picture I get when I try to crank the gamma up. Intel makes better video cards - an i810 performs about as well WITH LESS VRAM, a CPU that runs at less than half the speed, and half the TOTAL RAM! BTW, the picture in 2D was MUCH better, too.
No, no, no. The Radeon 7000 is earlier - it's a little better than Intel Extreme(ly Crappy) Graphics 2 - a P3-M 1.13 (I think) with a "Radeon VE" (7000) on Windows works better on BZFlag than my P4-2.2 with IEG2 with Linux (and it performs better on Linux than Windows, it seems).
Well, I fscked it up. I meant that it didn't jar the fingers as much as it sounds like. Yes, a Model M follows that very force profile, except for the keystroke being sent at the same moment as the key loses resistance, instead of when it hits the bottom. I'm typing this on an old (not compared to my Model M, though) HP multimedia keyboard becuase I don't have my M right now, and my el-cheapo membrane keyboard is a BITCH to type on.
I'll second the QuietKey. It's not a bad keyboard - laid out exactly how a 104-key should be, and doesn't feel too bad. But, the Model M is the best keyboard for applications where silence is not needed.
Actually, no. That force profile sounds like a mushier version of the Model M's keystroke, except that you can tell when the signal is sent as soon as resistance is lost.
Well, there is that sort of control. Just flip over the game, and look at it closely. Among the list of requirements/features (the space it takes on the memory card, for example), it "Pressure Sensitive". It's like that on almost every PS2 racing game. Just try out N4S:U (great game, BTW), and barely push down on the X button. You barely go. Then, mash the button, and watch your car fly.
Personally, I prefer the PS1 Dual Shock. Same shape, but the buttons aren't pressure sensitive, which is good because I found myself putting a lot of force into the X button to keep the gas pedal down in Need for Speed: Underground with a Dual Shock 2...
SATA runs at 150Mb/s, PCI runs at 133Mb/s. In other words, if you want a performance boost from SATA, you need a new motherboard. Also, the 7200RPM hard drives are only pushing ATA66 (66Mb/s).
No, because only two of them were running PPC operating systems. OK, so some of the x86 OSes were available in PPC versions, but it would still be about 40 x86 laptops.
Nope, it was a bunch of Brits with a 486SX-25, a Voodoo, and tons of alcohol (including vodka). They got it up to 247MHz, before it Athloned (non-XP, and this isn't from the project site, it's THG's thermal test of the P3-1.0, the Ath-1.4, the AthMP-1.2, and a P4 (I forgot the clock)).
Anyway, http://totl.net/Eunuch/index.html is the project.
And did I say that there was an actual correlation between latency and bandwidth? No, I implied that there was a perceived correlation between latency and bandwidth. You had said that dial-up was more broadband than satellite, showing that you were looking at the perceived correlation and the download caps. Bandwidth is how much data passes a certain point, latency is how long it takes for a particular bit to go from point A to point B, and download caps don't apply when talking about bandwidth.
And, larger libraries have software. The largest ones have seperate sections for software, or they're at least kept in the A/V section. The smaller ones? It's the CDs in the computer books.
Your wrapper system, and with the ISOs on the partition with the OS. CDs are $1 a pop (they've gotten cheaper than floppies, and my local library is really anal about not using their $1 a pop floppies, and they can't be used once they're taken out of the building - why not just run an anti-virus app? I'd rather run w/o an AV app than with IE, for that matter), and you can bring your own (it'll be set to not mount disks unless they're empty). It could even offer non-(Free|free) software, and charge at the kiosk. Why not a touchscreen if you're going w/o a keyboard? Personally, I'd prefer a keyboard and mouse, so that I could type in searches for ISOs easily.
Well, how far is the nearest person who has broadband? If it's 82 miles or less, how about an experimental WiFi link? If it's 20 or less, it's broadband time!
Actually, bandwidth (broadband being a fat band, or a wide band) has nothing to do with latency or download limits. Bandwidth has to do with how much data can be carried at a time. For example, a cargo ship has shitloads of bandwidth, but VERY poor latency. A fighter jet has hardly any bandwidth, but excellent latency. A satellite can carry a lot of data compared to a modem, but takes a long time to get there. A modem can't carry much data, but it gets there almost as quickly as DSL. Of course, not having much bandwidth can cause apparent loss of latency - the cargo ship might get the whole load (a 650 MB ISO, for example) there faster than a fighter jet that gets it there in 100 6.5MB chunks. It can also work the other way: a fighter jet that gets a 65MB file there in 10 6.5MB chunks could go much faster than a ship that's taking 65MB in one trip.
Actually... my school's rack is bolted to the wall(!) and is somehow holding together. Yep, it's got all of their networking equipment except for a hub in each classroom... Scary, isn't it?
Actually, at some stores, bitching about it might get the rest of the price knocked off, and they probably won't charge you the full price even if their policy is to not make it free if it rang up cheaper than it was labelled.
LOL! Actually, I didn't go there - I really did read about it on the site, and decided NOT to try that URL (after all, there ARE people with goatse fetishes - that site could be that nasty).
A desktop version of the Pentium M, S478 mobo, RAM, etc. If not that, a socket 370 mobo (mine is fried) This one is independent of the others - how 'bout a girlfriend? And I almost got one, too - but right before I was going to ask her number, she screwed over one of her friends right in front of me, and I didn't want that... at all. It's a real shame, too, because it means that I'll probably die a virgin.
I know that... well, not the part about the C5P being named Esther, but... Anyway, the C5XL (Nehemiah) 1.0GHz can murder a P4 3.2 HT on encryption. The C5P will be MUCH better at that. Sounds like these things would be great boxes for handling encryption, and REALLY bad boxes if you're running a version of Windows newer than XP or 2003.
No, no, no. Windows was going to be the consumer OS, and OS/2 was going to be the prosumer/business OS, kinda like how Windows 98 (and then ME) and Windows 2000 were, and how Windows 95 and NT4 were. However, when Microsoft was developing OS/2 2.0 (codenamed "NT", the shortened nickname for the Intel 860, the main platform for it), they decided to say "Fsck IBM!" and make it into Windows NT (for "New Technology") 3.1. It was BECAUSE it was going to be the next version of Windows that MS and IBM started fighting. OS/2 2.0 is actually a fork of OS/2 1.0, and NT is the trunk.
Slashdot Mirror
My board with a SavagePro SUCKS ASS. I can't stand it's dark picture, or the horrible washed out picture I get when I try to crank the gamma up. Intel makes better video cards - an i810 performs about as well WITH LESS VRAM, a CPU that runs at less than half the speed, and half the TOTAL RAM! BTW, the picture in 2D was MUCH better, too.
No, no, no. The Radeon 7000 is earlier - it's a little better than Intel Extreme(ly Crappy) Graphics 2 - a P3-M 1.13 (I think) with a "Radeon VE" (7000) on Windows works better on BZFlag than my P4-2.2 with IEG2 with Linux (and it performs better on Linux than Windows, it seems).
The keys wouldn't bounce back, and (AFAIK) the springs make the push on the plate, so no keypresses, and the keys wouldn't come up.
Well, I fscked it up. I meant that it didn't jar the fingers as much as it sounds like. Yes, a Model M follows that very force profile, except for the keystroke being sent at the same moment as the key loses resistance, instead of when it hits the bottom. I'm typing this on an old (not compared to my Model M, though) HP multimedia keyboard becuase I don't have my M right now, and my el-cheapo membrane keyboard is a BITCH to type on.
I'll second the QuietKey. It's not a bad keyboard - laid out exactly how a 104-key should be, and doesn't feel too bad. But, the Model M is the best keyboard for applications where silence is not needed.
Actually, no. That force profile sounds like a mushier version of the Model M's keystroke, except that you can tell when the signal is sent as soon as resistance is lost.
Well, there is that sort of control. Just flip over the game, and look at it closely. Among the list of requirements/features (the space it takes on the memory card, for example), it "Pressure Sensitive". It's like that on almost every PS2 racing game. Just try out N4S:U (great game, BTW), and barely push down on the X button. You barely go. Then, mash the button, and watch your car fly.
Personally, I prefer the PS1 Dual Shock. Same shape, but the buttons aren't pressure sensitive, which is good because I found myself putting a lot of force into the X button to keep the gas pedal down in Need for Speed: Underground with a Dual Shock 2...
Umm, they're up to 0.1.5, at least, and they've got a screenshot of 0.1.6.
SATA runs at 150Mb/s, PCI runs at 133Mb/s. In other words, if you want a performance boost from SATA, you need a new motherboard. Also, the 7200RPM hard drives are only pushing ATA66 (66Mb/s).
It is built on MS Office and (presumably) VBA. OOo can read said proprietary format, but it can't handle the VBA crap.
No, because only two of them were running PPC operating systems. OK, so some of the x86 OSes were available in PPC versions, but it would still be about 40 x86 laptops.
Nope, it was a bunch of Brits with a 486SX-25, a Voodoo, and tons of alcohol (including vodka). They got it up to 247MHz, before it Athloned (non-XP, and this isn't from the project site, it's THG's thermal test of the P3-1.0, the Ath-1.4, the AthMP-1.2, and a P4 (I forgot the clock)).
Anyway, http://totl.net/Eunuch/index.html is the project.
And did I say that there was an actual correlation between latency and bandwidth? No, I implied that there was a perceived correlation between latency and bandwidth. You had said that dial-up was more broadband than satellite, showing that you were looking at the perceived correlation and the download caps. Bandwidth is how much data passes a certain point, latency is how long it takes for a particular bit to go from point A to point B, and download caps don't apply when talking about bandwidth.
And, larger libraries have software. The largest ones have seperate sections for software, or they're at least kept in the A/V section. The smaller ones? It's the CDs in the computer books.
How about this:
Your wrapper system, and with the ISOs on the partition with the OS. CDs are $1 a pop (they've gotten cheaper than floppies, and my local library is really anal about not using their $1 a pop floppies, and they can't be used once they're taken out of the building - why not just run an anti-virus app? I'd rather run w/o an AV app than with IE, for that matter), and you can bring your own (it'll be set to not mount disks unless they're empty). It could even offer non-(Free|free) software, and charge at the kiosk. Why not a touchscreen if you're going w/o a keyboard? Personally, I'd prefer a keyboard and mouse, so that I could type in searches for ISOs easily.
Well, how far is the nearest person who has broadband? If it's 82 miles or less, how about an experimental WiFi link? If it's 20 or less, it's broadband time!
Actually, bandwidth (broadband being a fat band, or a wide band) has nothing to do with latency or download limits. Bandwidth has to do with how much data can be carried at a time. For example, a cargo ship has shitloads of bandwidth, but VERY poor latency. A fighter jet has hardly any bandwidth, but excellent latency. A satellite can carry a lot of data compared to a modem, but takes a long time to get there. A modem can't carry much data, but it gets there almost as quickly as DSL. Of course, not having much bandwidth can cause apparent loss of latency - the cargo ship might get the whole load (a 650 MB ISO, for example) there faster than a fighter jet that gets it there in 100 6.5MB chunks. It can also work the other way: a fighter jet that gets a 65MB file there in 10 6.5MB chunks could go much faster than a ship that's taking 65MB in one trip.
Actually... my school's rack is bolted to the wall(!) and is somehow holding together. Yep, it's got all of their networking equipment except for a hub in each classroom... Scary, isn't it?
Umm... what if you need to run several OSes on a single file server?
Actually, at some stores, bitching about it might get the rest of the price knocked off, and they probably won't charge you the full price even if their policy is to not make it free if it rang up cheaper than it was labelled.
LOL! Actually, I didn't go there - I really did read about it on the site, and decided NOT to try that URL (after all, there ARE people with goatse fetishes - that site could be that nasty).
Here's what I want, and I'll take any or all:
A desktop version of the Pentium M, S478 mobo, RAM, etc.
If not that, a socket 370 mobo (mine is fried)
This one is independent of the others - how 'bout a girlfriend? And I almost got one, too - but right before I was going to ask her number, she screwed over one of her friends right in front of me, and I didn't want that... at all. It's a real shame, too, because it means that I'll probably die a virgin.
I know that... well, not the part about the C5P being named Esther, but... Anyway, the C5XL (Nehemiah) 1.0GHz can murder a P4 3.2 HT on encryption. The C5P will be MUCH better at that. Sounds like these things would be great boxes for handling encryption, and REALLY bad boxes if you're running a version of Windows newer than XP or 2003.
No, no, no. Windows was going to be the consumer OS, and OS/2 was going to be the prosumer/business OS, kinda like how Windows 98 (and then ME) and Windows 2000 were, and how Windows 95 and NT4 were. However, when Microsoft was developing OS/2 2.0 (codenamed "NT", the shortened nickname for the Intel 860, the main platform for it), they decided to say "Fsck IBM!" and make it into Windows NT (for "New Technology") 3.1. It was BECAUSE it was going to be the next version of Windows that MS and IBM started fighting. OS/2 2.0 is actually a fork of OS/2 1.0, and NT is the trunk.