Cat5 expects two pairs, each of which carries a differntial signal. If the wire lengths are too far off (and off the top of my head I would imagine is about 6 cm) it will not work.
(I got 6cm by using (a) speed in coax ~ 1/2 C, lamda = speed/2*pi*freq, matching needs 1/4 lamba or better)
A good point. The processing to add "OPC" to the images on the fly might make your glasses rather warm. Also, the optics problem gets more complicated, because you do still have the increased dispersion due to the small spots. The wafers don't move and refocus the way a human eye does.
One advantage might be that you can dynamically change the effective distance to the virtual screen -- it's important people refocus to different differences fairly often. It seems to me there are "re-focusing" algorithms for images, and this could be a version of that (especially since we have the "true") image.
(I would mod you up, but I can't mod in a thread I'm contributing to...)
I've worked on micro display projects before --- and you don't want the pixel pitch getting too close to the wavelength of light -- which will be around 1/2 micron. Pixels smaller than a micron or so will result in dispersion of the light that is generated, limiting the quality of the image.
The original reply was, of course, from an AI who has not (yet) been granted the legal status of person hood. In this light you see that the response was completely correct.
I'm pretty "anti-microsoft", but I still know it's pretty dangerous to deduce much from a single example. For example, are there any situations where the complexity is reversed? I'd guess not (or not as many), but you can't really tell...
As I recall, djbdns has a licence that makes it hard to distribute: everything goes in weird places, and if you distribute the code you can't distribute changes (only patches).... which might affect whether the major distributions would be interested.
The problem is you're permitting coding of your network interface... even assuming your "sandbox" holds up, it would seem there's ample room for a denial of service.
When I just started a new job (simillary after being "excessed" from my previous company), the agreement I was offered clearly asked me only to identify things which relate to the companies business. That may be a California thing -- I think California restricts the claim a company can lay to it's employee's ideas.
But at any rate, there are companies which will agree to what you wish to ask.
Actually, if you require that the real conection come from the same port as the knocks, then the only feasilbe way around it would seem to be port sniffing.
The idea is to find words that someone needs to let through, and add them to your spam.
Exactly which words will be a function of job, life style, income level...
So when I use my anti-anti-spam filter, I can generate lists of words that will target specific populations, w/o having to figure out who on my (huge) list of recipients is in which population.
This could serve a significant ulterior goal for SCO. By postponing the IBM trial (awaiting resolution of their ownership of the copyright), they increase the time during which uncertainty (such as it is) about linux remains high.
So this could be as much an attempt to decrease linux share and increase royalties as it is to establish whether Novel sold the rights that SCO claims they did.
I see three things coming:
1) Mid level managers will have to move or be outsourced (since the people they are managing will be distant, and someone will figure out that managing by email doesn't work as well).
2) Major corporations will start to feel a major hit to their wallets, as the source of consumers dries up.
3) If (1) or (2) does not create a significant correction, the environment will slow it's downward spiral, since consumption will drop dramtically.
So... while I see this as a very painful thing (I've seen jobs I've been working on moved over seas), I'm not completely sure it's a bad thing.
Unfair, yes. Bad, maybe not.
Doug
It is not clear that outsiders (outside MS that is) will be able to respond to M. Taylor's data, since all MS licence agreements prohibit benchmarking -- so you need to take MS's word on whether they are better or worse at something.
Slashdot Mirror
Cat5 expects two pairs, each of which carries a differntial signal. If the wire lengths are too far off (and off the top of my head I would imagine is about 6 cm) it will not work.
(I got 6cm by using (a) speed in coax ~ 1/2 C, lamda = speed/2*pi*freq, matching needs 1/4 lamba or better)
A good point. The processing to add "OPC" to the images on the fly might make your glasses rather warm. Also, the optics problem gets more complicated, because you do still have the increased dispersion due to the small spots. The wafers don't move and refocus the way a human eye does.
...)
One advantage might be that you can dynamically change the effective distance to the virtual screen -- it's important people refocus to different differences fairly often. It seems to me there are "re-focusing" algorithms for images, and this could be a version of that (especially since we have the "true") image.
(I would mod you up, but I can't mod in a thread I'm contributing to
dsojourner
I've worked on micro display projects before --- and you don't want the pixel pitch getting too close to the wavelength of light -- which will be around 1/2 micron. Pixels smaller than a micron or so will result in dispersion of the light that is generated, limiting the quality of the image.
So ... will that be 6200000 rebates, or 6501171 rebates?
The original reply was, of course, from an AI who has not (yet) been granted the legal status of person hood. In this light you see that the response was completely correct.
I'm pretty "anti-microsoft", but I still know it's pretty dangerous to deduce much from a single example. For example, are there any situations where the complexity is reversed? I'd guess not (or not as many), but you can't really tell ...
Headcase88 (828620) hits the nail on the head, but only got a 2
it will not last the night
As I recall, djbdns has a licence that makes it hard to distribute: everything goes in weird places, and if you distribute the code you can't distribute changes (only patches). ... which might affect whether the major distributions would be interested.
The problem is you're permitting coding of your network interface ... even assuming your "sandbox" holds up, it would seem there's ample room for a denial of service.
dsojourner
Is there any way to ensure that prior art we are aware of reaches the examiner? (W/o slash dotting them!)
dsojourner
When I just started a new job (simillary after being "excessed" from my previous company), the agreement I was offered clearly asked me only to identify things which relate to the companies business. That may be a California thing -- I think California restricts the claim a company can lay to it's employee's ideas.
But at any rate, there are companies which will agree to what you wish to ask.
dsojourner
Actually, if you require that the real conection come from the same port as the knocks, then the only feasilbe way around it would seem to be port sniffing.
The idea is to find words that someone needs to let through, and add them to your spam.
...
...
Exactly which words will be a function of job, life style, income level
So when I use my anti-anti-spam filter, I can generate lists of words that will target specific populations, w/o having to figure out who on my (huge) list of recipients is in which population.
Big news
This could serve a significant ulterior goal for SCO. By postponing the IBM trial (awaiting resolution of their ownership of the copyright), they increase the time during which uncertainty (such as it is) about linux remains high.
So this could be as much an attempt to decrease linux share and increase royalties as it is to establish whether Novel sold the rights that SCO claims they did.
I see three things coming: 1) Mid level managers will have to move or be outsourced (since the people they are managing will be distant, and someone will figure out that managing by email doesn't work as well). 2) Major corporations will start to feel a major hit to their wallets, as the source of consumers dries up. 3) If (1) or (2) does not create a significant correction, the environment will slow it's downward spiral, since consumption will drop dramtically. So ... while I see this as a very painful thing (I've seen jobs I've been working on moved over seas), I'm not completely sure it's a bad thing.
Unfair, yes. Bad, maybe not.
Doug
IBM vs Microsoft's interests (even though it's not their case) ... I'm not sure I'd bet at this point.
It is not clear that outsiders (outside MS that is) will be able to respond to M. Taylor's data, since all MS licence agreements prohibit benchmarking -- so you need to take MS's word on whether they are better or worse at something.
Not exactly "competition".