Holy shit!! 36 foot TV screen. While I would have to say the resolution pretty much would such (640 scan lines would be 0.675 or > 1/2" per scan-line)
Truly amazing.:)
But seriously, I did try hooking my machine up to a decent 32" TV, and I found that I really couldn't read any text. Everything was just too blurry. Perhaps it is just my video card (GeForce 2 w/ TV Out).
One interesting thing, though. I have found that other than size, I prefer watching DVD's on my 21" monitor. Just everything seems... crisper. It seems like the 3D effect is stronger.
Actually I have to agree with you. Until reading this post, I never new that older stuff was search. I just knew that whenever you clicked on one of the icons it opened up a search under that topic. I just did that and then reconfigured the search options. Thanks for helping me.
Actually I think I would prefer the permissions to be 777, or at least 770 if I was lucky enough to be a part of the earth group. Since I really don't think I'm the user.:)
I believe you can just su to root, and then use the root account to change the 'niceness' of the CD burning software. At least I've done that with some of my programs. It doesn't automatically start up with a higher priority, but once it starts, you can change it's priority.
The reason they run at 900/1900 is because all US GSM lines are 1900. If they ran 900/1800 it wouldn't be useable in the US. I know because I had a friend from Europe who had a dual-band 900/1800 and wasn't able to use it here.
From what I saw looking up the GSM rates around the
world it seems that you're right. Although the last time I looked it seemed that most places that offered 1800 also offered 900, and 1800 was more of a benefit than a requirement.
There is a digital out on the back.
I'm not sure if it is SPDIF or not, but the optical out is on the front, there is a digital out right next to the SPDIF in.
Isn't that what it is all about?
Compressing sound in a lossless format is all about 'hacking'. You cut corners in order to get the performance you want while loosing the performance you don't care about.
If you really wanted to keep all of the information in the music you would use raw WAV files [possibly losslessly compressed in some way, I guess Shorten does this]. I suppose you could go so far as to say that you shouldn't ever use CD's anyway, because they aren't as good as a live performance. There's more that could be said here, but it really gets off the point.
Anyway, I'm glad that the people at Xiph are 'hacking' more features into OGG's. That is what will allow them to be even better at what they do. Compress music in a lossy fashion such that they lose as little of the important stuff as possible.
I don't know specifically about the Promise IDE RAID, but I do know about the HPT370 RAID. They are actually included together.
All I can really say is that it's not quite perfect. I'm using an on-board HPT370 [it's part of my Abit VP-6], and under Win2K I don't think I've had any crashes [well other than some reproducable ones that are things that I've done]
But I've used the -ac patches in 2.4.6-2.4.8 and so far there is still a couple of times when my machine will just lock up. It seems to be related to disk access, but it also only happens when I'm running X. Without X, I haven't had any problems [although I can't run Mozilla or XMMS, etc without X]
In general, though, it recognizes and runs fine. I haven't had any general data inconsistency [I run ReiserFS on the RAID partitions]
Again, this is for the HPT370, not the Promise IDE RAID, but since they are in the same kernel patch, I figured their results would be similar.
Actually one interesting thing about AI that keeps learning is that it can drive itself insane. At least that was the experience we had where I worked last. We had a neural network to control a highly non-linear system with a huge amount of noise. It would do well, but if you kept in on learn mode, it could develop some really serious quirks. It's possible it was just a bug in the NN code, but it was certainly an interesting "feature".
It would also be interesting if you developed an AI through randomization and had it end up coming up with a completely non-intuitive solution that kicked. Although if that happened it's probably something that should be fixed with the way the game plays.
If you notice, there's no rating comment [like informative, troll, funny, etc], that means the Score:2 is because the poster has such high karma, they get an automatic point boost.
I don't know that I would have modded it up, but I thought it was funny.
Actually as far as temperature, where I used to work they tried implementing a neural network to control the heating/cooling of the building. We were using neural networks in our product at the time, so it wasn't very difficult to stretch the program over a couple of different inputs.
The idea behind it was that everyone would have different preferences as to the temperature of where they were, as well as different drafts etc. The building was split into something like 14 zones, which allowed different heating/cooling based on location. So another hope is that the person who sat on the northeast corner who was always cold could get a little extra heat from the nearby zone even though they were in the zone where everyone else was always warm.
A neat idea, but in practise it didn't work so well. Basically everyone was given the option to say what temperature they would like it to be. And the system would try and make that happen. Because everyone has a different idea of temps some people thought it should be 68, while others thought 74. They ended up having the largest heating bill ever in 1 month and so management decided to cancel the test.
My ex-boss had the idea that people should have instead voted for whether they were too cold/too warm rather than trying to set the temperature directly. Maybe it would have worked better.
I also think the problem is the issue of learning time. Before a neural net figures out what's going on, you don't have a very nice system. The more complex the system (and therefore the greater the need for a neural net), the longer the learning time, and the greater amount of time before good returns can be seen. And especially in a system that you don't know whether or not it's going to turn out well (like the temp control), you may not be able to afford that learning curve.
While I agree, that having that information is beneficial, I have to also agree that it's still not as revolutionary as "moldy bread".
I'm not saying that we aren't doing great things, but I don't feel like we're doubling life expectancy.
Using your statement of "instantaneous access to life-saving information". Say it's extremely fast, and only takes 50 milliseconds to get a diagnosis. Is it really going to be that much different than getting it it 5 minutes. There's a factor of 6000 difference, but it's effect is mostly just convenience. Especially if nothing is going to be done until tomorrow. [In the case of something like a surgery].
I think the failing isn't necessarily in technology, but just the fact that technology is starting to come up to the level of operating at the speed of life. Things don't really change all that much in a day or week.
If you get cancer, it takes months/years for it to develop to a serious state. That's a lot of time for diagnosis. And even if it's cured and I live an extra 10 years, that's not much more than 10% of my life expectancy.
I think the article failed to make a positive point of the fact that middle class has been redefined. Because of technology we have been able to reduce poverty, diminish disease, etc.
I think it's just an issue of diminishing returns. Kind of the whole argument that computers don't need to be any faster for 90% of the average person wants to use it for. That's not to say that I don't want to play better games, compute more accurate physics to create fusion reactors, etc. I just don't think that it has as much of an overwhelming impact.
Why would noone bother campaining anywhere but the top 6-7? Because if you had two parties that were only campaining in those two states, you could guess that the votes would be split evenly between the two possibilities. If 5 states would give you 1/2 the vote, then having half of those 5 states would give you only 1/4 of the vote. So you still need to be able to fill the other 1/4 of the votes.
You're right that they may only campain in the larger states, but isn't that the case with how it is now?
I don't necessarily agree with killing someone because they are just sucking up resources, but what about the reverse. Should we keep someone even though the quality of life is minimal? That isn't stated exactly the way I want it, but it's close.
Why are we so concerned with extending life to it's absolute max (length), instead of dealing more with the quality of life therein. I personally don't smoke (I've tried it a couple of times and all it did was make my mouth taste bad). But assume someone who smokes loses 5 years of their life. But if the other 50+ years of their life they are much happier because they could have a cigarette, isn't the overall "quality" of the life better? The argument could be extended to a lot of things.
If a person is in pain and doesn't want to live anymore, why should we force them? Why not help them out [Doctor assisted suicide] so that they can go without pain, with some dignity, whatever...
I realize that your argument wasn't exactly against this, but it is something I feel and wanted to get said.
* Exact positioning of an electron is forbidden by the Uncertainty Principle, anyway
As above - this is irrelevant. It is the uncertainty principle that _gives_ us the wavelength of the electron, among other things. The electron orbits are _definitely_ large enough for this to be a non-issue (as they're more than a wavelength in size).
Isn't the resolution that you can define between two different states also equal to the uncertainty?
For instance if the incertainty was 5, yes I could have any of the states from 1-100, (and all the fractions inbetween) however, I couldn't tell the difference between state 4 and state 6 because I can only say that this state is state 4+-5, and the other is state 6 +-5.
Doesn't violating this break the uncertainty barrier? (I can't measure 5mV on my voltmeter, so instead I'll bump everything up to 5V and then it will tell me the difference between 5V and 5.005V)
I might be wrong, but I just got done with a 3rd year physics class and this was my understanding.
Do you have any more info on this? It sounds interesting, but I have doubts about it. Like the fact that Hydrogen is fairly reactive. It would tend to oxidize, and I don't know that it would create a oxidation layer of protection (considering that oxidized H2 is H2O)
Maybe I'm just being dense here, but what did they actually do wrong? It looked to me like the only fault was creating it. Is it wrong to write something that acts like someone else's program? I realize there's the whole patent issue, but I didn't think that AOL had a patent on Winamp. hmmmmm...
Actually, I'm sorry if I came off arguing that other things weren't consistent, I really don't have much experience in lots of different things. I was just saying that having consistency is very important to me (it makes a lot of things easier, just less thinking/finding things). It's good to know that they are consistent, it means it will be easier when I can finally switch over completely.
I'm not positive about this, but I thought I remember hearing in one of my classes that if you get information that doesn't apply, it can't be used. Example: Police suspect that I'm smuggling guns into the country. They get a warrant to search my house for guns. When they get there they find that I'm growing marijuana, but no guns. They take the marijuana because it's a controlled substance, but they can't arrest me for it because they didn't have a warrant to search my house for it. (Of course, if I were them I'd go get a warrant for it and then research, but that's a separate item.)
If this is the case, there is a simple analogy. They require the key to look for incriminating evidence in regards to the crime. However, if they find something else, they have to get a separate request for that. And he should have time to recover from it. As in the previous example, if they take all the marijuana and I don't grow any more, they can't get me on that. They might be suspicious and if I'm stupid and continue they could bust me on it, but if I stop then I would be okay. (So if he had kiddie porn and he didn't have any other pictures that they could find, he would be okay) Of course, IANAL, but I do believe I remember this. Alternatively, I would just like to know if what I remember is correct. I obviously don't smuggle drugs/weapons, but I like to know when my memory fails me.
While I can't refute your argument that Windows copied the interface from other things, to me it really doesn't matter whether it was copied or not. What matters is that it IS consistent. Yes, maybe you didn't know that Alt-F4 was the close statement. To me that just says that you never used the little icon in the upper left because every time you click on it it pops down the little box that says "Close Alt+F4" To close a document is usually Ctrl-F4. While I agree that it may not be the most obvious of choices. (Why not Alt-Q or Alt-C or something like that) It IS standard. And that's what I care about. When I want to close a window I don't have to search around or lift my hands off the keyboard, I just hit Alt-F4. I would have to say the same thing for Cut/Copy/Paste. It's a fair standard to have Ctrl-X, Ctrl-C, and Ctrl-V for those functions. Some versions of DOS editors use like Shift-Insert, but that is probably just legacy. So while you're argument that it was copied is probably correct, it really doesn't matter. Isn't that the whole point in creating things? To take good ideas from something and improve upon it. I don't credit Windows with creating everything, I will credit them with putting it together fairly well. I have limited use with Linux, although I would much rather see it succeed because I agree with the principles behind it. If I could get everything I can in Windows under Linux, I would probably switch. Unfortunately, we've got a lot of tools that we use that are only for Windows, and we need them to get by. Sorry about the rant
I read the "whitepaper", and found it pretty interesting. I kind of like the idea of a cache that allows you to make a note of all of the links that you are interested in and have it load it while you do something else. The only things I would add would be the ability to preferentially load one link over another. I'm not sure how easily this could be implemented, but I know that one problem I have with the "multitasking" method is that because I'm using up my pipe in multiple ways, I often am not able to get anything, so I just keep on opening new things until finally something loads. Which, of course, causes everything to download even slower. As far as how you would display the links, I think something of the format of a tree control (like Windows Explorer) would probably work well. Mabye not the best thing, but certainly a potential. Alternatively you could continue with something like yours only allow someone to collapse a section. The idea being that all sub-links would be displayed, but they'd be connected to the previous parent with some sort of indication that there are 1 or more sections between them. Also, as far as integrating into a web-browser, I know it can be done. I'm not positive on how to do it, but if you go to www.hotbar.com, it will add a menu bar into IE5 that makes all of the menu bars have "skin" on them. It's kind of fun, although I decided to turn mine off, I guess I was just used to a normal window. Anyway, the point is, I'm sure there must be some way to integrate a new menu into IE. I realize that might not be what you're going for (it sounds more like you want to affect a Linux browser). But then again, Mozilla's source is open, so it might be easy to create somthing that would fit on the menu. Just my two bucks. Email me if you're interested.
If I read the article correctly, this only connects to an NTSC source. Doesn't that mean that it doesn't connect to a monitor but only a TV/VCR etc. If so, what is the use of resolutions greater than 640x480? Is it just for something like HDTV? (My understanding was that NTSC was 640x480 (actually I think it was slightly less than that, but the general idea is that it was fixed size)) Or are the more expensive models for different things?
Not necessarily. The idea of dropping the processor speed is (if I remember correctly) done based on whether you are connected to a power supply (plugging it into the wall) vs running on battery. It runs slower when you are running on the battery to conserve power. Come to think of it, I wonder how much advantage there is. I mean, say I want to do X numbers of computations. If I slow down the processor speed I decrease the number of computations per second, but I increase the number of seconds per battery. I suppose they aren't related the same (probably battery life is increased much faster than computations are decreased, but I have no idea if that's true). Just my 2c
Another link that I just found: Gamespot If you look about midway down for The Coppermine/RDRAM/820 combination clearly outpaces other solutions, including the Athlon 700. But the performance crown lies much more uneasily on this system's head. AMD has just announced the 750MHz Athlon, which is built using a 0.18 micron semiconductor process, similar to that used for Coppermine. This states that Intel is faster, although not by much. I doubt, however, that it can be considered faster because of a mere 33MHz, so my feeling is that the overall package of a PIII system is better than the Athlon. (The CPU may not be any better, but once you plug it into something, it starts getting better.) Note also, the cost of increasing to RDRAM and the 820 chipset isn't very cheap, but it does seem faster.
Slashdot Mirror
Truly amazing.
But seriously, I did try hooking my machine up to a decent 32" TV, and I found that I really couldn't read any text. Everything was just too blurry. Perhaps it is just my video card (GeForce 2 w/ TV Out).
One interesting thing, though. I have found that other than size, I prefer watching DVD's on my 21" monitor. Just everything seems... crisper. It seems like the 3D effect is stronger.
Actually I have to agree with you. Until reading this post, I never new that older stuff was search.
I just knew that whenever you clicked on one of the icons it opened up a search under that topic. I just did that and then reconfigured the search options.
Thanks for helping me.
Actually I think I would prefer the permissions to be 777, or at least 770 if I was lucky enough to be a part of the earth group. Since I really don't think I'm the user. :)
I believe you can just su to root, and then use the root account to change the 'niceness' of the CD burning software. At least I've done that with some of my programs. It doesn't automatically start up with a higher priority, but once it starts, you can change it's priority.
The reason they run at 900/1900 is because all US GSM lines are 1900. If they ran 900/1800 it wouldn't be useable in the US. I know because I had a friend from Europe who had a dual-band 900/1800 and wasn't able to use it here.
From what I saw looking up the GSM rates around the world it seems that you're right. Although the last time I looked it seemed that most places that offered 1800 also offered 900, and 1800 was more of a benefit than a requirement.
There is a digital out on the back.
I'm not sure if it is SPDIF or not, but the optical out is on the front, there is a digital out right next to the SPDIF in.
Isn't that what it is all about?
Compressing sound in a lossless format is all about 'hacking'. You cut corners in order to get the performance you want while loosing the performance you don't care about.
If you really wanted to keep all of the information in the music you would use raw WAV files [possibly losslessly compressed in some way, I guess Shorten does this]. I suppose you could go so far as to say that you shouldn't ever use CD's anyway, because they aren't as good as a live performance. There's more that could be said here, but it really gets off the point.
Anyway, I'm glad that the people at Xiph are 'hacking' more features into OGG's. That is what will allow them to be even better at what they do. Compress music in a lossy fashion such that they lose as little of the important stuff as possible.
I don't know specifically about the Promise IDE RAID, but I do know about the HPT370 RAID. They are actually included together.
All I can really say is that it's not quite perfect. I'm using an on-board HPT370 [it's part of my Abit VP-6], and under Win2K I don't think I've had any crashes [well other than some reproducable ones that are things that I've done]
But I've used the -ac patches in 2.4.6-2.4.8 and so far there is still a couple of times when my machine will just lock up. It seems to be related to disk access, but it also only happens when I'm running X. Without X, I haven't had any problems [although I can't run Mozilla or XMMS, etc without X]
In general, though, it recognizes and runs fine. I haven't had any general data inconsistency [I run ReiserFS on the RAID partitions]
Again, this is for the HPT370, not the Promise IDE RAID, but since they are in the same kernel patch, I figured their results would be similar.
Actually one interesting thing about AI that keeps learning is that it can drive itself insane. At least that was the experience we had where I worked last. We had a neural network to control a highly non-linear system with a huge amount of noise. It would do well, but if you kept in on learn mode, it could develop some really serious quirks. It's possible it was just a bug in the NN code, but it was certainly an interesting "feature".
It would also be interesting if you developed an AI through randomization and had it end up coming up with a completely non-intuitive solution that kicked. Although if that happened it's probably something that should be fixed with the way the game plays.
If you notice, there's no rating comment [like informative, troll, funny, etc], that means the Score:2 is because the poster has such high karma, they get an automatic point boost.
I don't know that I would have modded it up, but I thought it was funny.
Actually as far as temperature, where I used to work they tried implementing a neural network to control the heating/cooling of the building. We were using neural networks in our product at the time, so it wasn't very difficult to stretch the program over a couple of different inputs.
The idea behind it was that everyone would have different preferences as to the temperature of where they were, as well as different drafts etc. The building was split into something like 14 zones, which allowed different heating/cooling based on location. So another hope is that the person who sat on the northeast corner who was always cold could get a little extra heat from the nearby zone even though they were in the zone where everyone else was always warm.
A neat idea, but in practise it didn't work so well. Basically everyone was given the option to say what temperature they would like it to be. And the system would try and make that happen. Because everyone has a different idea of temps some people thought it should be 68, while others thought 74. They ended up having the largest heating bill ever in 1 month and so management decided to cancel the test.
My ex-boss had the idea that people should have instead voted for whether they were too cold/too warm rather than trying to set the temperature directly. Maybe it would have worked better.
I also think the problem is the issue of learning time. Before a neural net figures out what's going on, you don't have a very nice system. The more complex the system (and therefore the greater the need for a neural net), the longer the learning time, and the greater amount of time before good returns can be seen. And especially in a system that you don't know whether or not it's going to turn out well (like the temp control), you may not be able to afford that learning curve.
But an interesting idea nonetheless.
While I agree, that having that information is beneficial, I have to also agree that it's still not as revolutionary as "moldy bread".
I'm not saying that we aren't doing great things, but I don't feel like we're doubling life expectancy.
Using your statement of "instantaneous access to life-saving information". Say it's extremely fast, and only takes 50 milliseconds to get a diagnosis. Is it really going to be that much different than getting it it 5 minutes. There's a factor of 6000 difference, but it's effect is mostly just convenience. Especially if nothing is going to be done until tomorrow. [In the case of something like a surgery].
I think the failing isn't necessarily in technology, but just the fact that technology is starting to come up to the level of operating at the speed of life. Things don't really change all that much in a day or week.
If you get cancer, it takes months/years for it to develop to a serious state. That's a lot of time for diagnosis. And even if it's cured and I live an extra 10 years, that's not much more than 10% of my life expectancy.
I think the article failed to make a positive point of the fact that middle class has been redefined. Because of technology we have been able to reduce poverty, diminish disease, etc.
I think it's just an issue of diminishing returns. Kind of the whole argument that computers don't need to be any faster for 90% of the average person wants to use it for. That's not to say that I don't want to play better games, compute more accurate physics to create fusion reactors, etc. I just don't think that it has as much of an overwhelming impact.
Why would noone bother campaining anywhere but the top 6-7? Because if you had two parties that were only campaining in those two states, you could guess that the votes would be split evenly between the two possibilities. If 5 states would give you 1/2 the vote, then having half of those 5 states would give you only 1/4 of the vote. So you still need to be able to fill the other 1/4 of the votes.
You're right that they may only campain in the larger states, but isn't that the case with how it is now?
I don't necessarily agree with killing someone because they are just sucking up resources, but what about the reverse. Should we keep someone even though the quality of life is minimal? That isn't stated exactly the way I want it, but it's close.
Why are we so concerned with extending life to it's absolute max (length), instead of dealing more with the quality of life therein. I personally don't smoke (I've tried it a couple of times and all it did was make my mouth taste bad). But assume someone who smokes loses 5 years of their life. But if the other 50+ years of their life they are much happier because they could have a cigarette, isn't the overall "quality" of the life better? The argument could be extended to a lot of things.
If a person is in pain and doesn't want to live anymore, why should we force them? Why not help them out [Doctor assisted suicide] so that they can go without pain, with some dignity, whatever...
I realize that your argument wasn't exactly against this, but it is something I feel and wanted to get said.
Isn't the resolution that you can define between two different states also equal to the uncertainty?
For instance if the incertainty was 5, yes I could have any of the states from 1-100, (and all the fractions inbetween) however, I couldn't tell the difference between state 4 and state 6 because I can only say that this state is state 4+-5, and the other is state 6 +-5.
Doesn't violating this break the uncertainty barrier? (I can't measure 5mV on my voltmeter, so instead I'll bump everything up to 5V and then it will tell me the difference between 5V and 5.005V)
I might be wrong, but I just got done with a 3rd year physics class and this was my understanding.
Do you have any more info on this? It sounds interesting, but I have doubts about it.
Like the fact that Hydrogen is fairly reactive. It would tend to oxidize, and I don't know that it would create a oxidation layer of protection (considering that oxidized H2 is H2O)
Maybe I'm just being dense here, but what did they actually do wrong? It looked to me like the only fault was creating it. Is it wrong to write something that acts like someone else's program? I realize there's the whole patent issue, but I didn't think that AOL had a patent on Winamp. hmmmmm...
Actually, I'm sorry if I came off arguing that other things weren't consistent, I really don't have much experience in lots of different things. I was just saying that having consistency is very important to me (it makes a lot of things easier, just less thinking/finding things). It's good to know that they are consistent, it means it will be easier when I can finally switch over completely.
I'm not positive about this, but I thought I remember hearing in one of my classes that if you get information that doesn't apply, it can't be used.
Example: Police suspect that I'm smuggling guns into the country. They get a warrant to search my house for guns. When they get there they find that I'm growing marijuana, but no guns. They take the marijuana because it's a controlled substance, but they can't arrest me for it because they didn't have a warrant to search my house for it. (Of course, if I were them I'd go get a warrant for it and then research, but that's a separate item.)
If this is the case, there is a simple analogy. They require the key to look for incriminating evidence in regards to the crime. However, if they find something else, they have to get a separate request for that. And he should have time to recover from it. As in the previous example, if they take all the marijuana and I don't grow any more, they can't get me on that. They might be suspicious and if I'm stupid and continue they could bust me on it, but if I stop then I would be okay. (So if he had kiddie porn and he didn't have any other pictures that they could find, he would be okay)
Of course, IANAL, but I do believe I remember this.
Alternatively, I would just like to know if what I remember is correct. I obviously don't smuggle drugs/weapons, but I like to know when my memory fails me.
While I can't refute your argument that Windows copied the interface from other things, to me it really doesn't matter whether it was copied or not. What matters is that it IS consistent. Yes, maybe you didn't know that Alt-F4 was the close statement. To me that just says that you never used the little icon in the upper left because every time you click on it it pops down the little box that says "Close Alt+F4" To close a document is usually Ctrl-F4. While I agree that it may not be the most obvious of choices. (Why not Alt-Q or Alt-C or something like that) It IS standard. And that's what I care about. When I want to close a window I don't have to search around or lift my hands off the keyboard, I just hit Alt-F4. I would have to say the same thing for Cut/Copy/Paste. It's a fair standard to have Ctrl-X, Ctrl-C, and Ctrl-V for those functions. Some versions of DOS editors use like Shift-Insert, but that is probably just legacy.
So while you're argument that it was copied is probably correct, it really doesn't matter. Isn't that the whole point in creating things? To take good ideas from something and improve upon it. I don't credit Windows with creating everything, I will credit them with putting it together fairly well. I have limited use with Linux, although I would much rather see it succeed because I agree with the principles behind it. If I could get everything I can in Windows under Linux, I would probably switch. Unfortunately, we've got a lot of tools that we use that are only for Windows, and we need them to get by.
Sorry about the rant
I read the "whitepaper", and found it pretty interesting. I kind of like the idea of a cache that allows you to make a note of all of the links that you are interested in and have it load it while you do something else.
The only things I would add would be the ability to preferentially load one link over another. I'm not sure how easily this could be implemented, but I know that one problem I have with the "multitasking" method is that because I'm using up my pipe in multiple ways, I often am not able to get anything, so I just keep on opening new things until finally something loads. Which, of course, causes everything to download even slower.
As far as how you would display the links, I think something of the format of a tree control (like Windows Explorer) would probably work well. Mabye not the best thing, but certainly a potential. Alternatively you could continue with something like yours only allow someone to collapse a section. The idea being that all sub-links would be displayed, but they'd be connected to the previous parent with some sort of indication that there are 1 or more sections between them.
Also, as far as integrating into a web-browser, I know it can be done. I'm not positive on how to do it, but if you go to www.hotbar.com, it will add a menu bar into IE5 that makes all of the menu bars have "skin" on them. It's kind of fun, although I decided to turn mine off, I guess I was just used to a normal window.
Anyway, the point is, I'm sure there must be some way to integrate a new menu into IE. I realize that might not be what you're going for (it sounds more like you want to affect a Linux browser). But then again, Mozilla's source is open, so it might be easy to create somthing that would fit on the menu.
Just my two bucks. Email me if you're interested.
If I read the article correctly, this only connects to an NTSC source. Doesn't that mean that it doesn't connect to a monitor but only a TV/VCR etc. If so, what is the use of resolutions greater than 640x480? Is it just for something like HDTV? (My understanding was that NTSC was 640x480 (actually I think it was slightly less than that, but the general idea is that it was fixed size))
Or are the more expensive models for different things?
Not necessarily. The idea of dropping the processor speed is (if I remember correctly) done based on whether you are connected to a power supply (plugging it into the wall) vs running on battery. It runs slower when you are running on the battery to conserve power.
Come to think of it, I wonder how much advantage there is. I mean, say I want to do X numbers of computations. If I slow down the processor speed I decrease the number of computations per second, but I increase the number of seconds per battery. I suppose they aren't related the same (probably battery life is increased much faster than computations are decreased, but I have no idea if that's true).
Just my 2c
I thought Mel Brooks had died. Otherwise I love the title. Pretty cool.
Another link that I just found:
Gamespot
If you look about midway down for
The Coppermine/RDRAM/820 combination clearly outpaces other solutions, including the Athlon 700. But the performance crown lies much more uneasily on this system's head. AMD has just announced the 750MHz Athlon, which is built using a 0.18 micron semiconductor process, similar to that used for Coppermine.
This states that Intel is faster, although not by much. I doubt, however, that it can be considered faster because of a mere 33MHz, so my feeling is that the overall package of a PIII system is better than the Athlon. (The CPU may not be any better, but once you plug it into something, it starts getting better.) Note also, the cost of increasing to RDRAM and the 820 chipset isn't very cheap, but it does seem faster.