You sure about that? At one point, I had my current computer ripping one track from a CD, transcoding a second track, playing a third, compiling KDE, and browsing the web, all at the same time, and the music never skipped.
I've been tracking computers for the last four years. In the past year, the performace of computers purchased by the average Joe has not changed much.
I've been the "need for upgrade" feel. My previous computer, which I would describe as a "level 8" when I purchased it, started feeling very slow relative to what I wanted to do after about two and a half years. My current computer, which I would describe as a "level 9" when I purchased it, is still feeling fast enough for most tasks after almost three years.
I would describe the Windows box sitting next to me as a level 6 computer with a level 1 graphics card -- software-only 3D rendering. I would describe its predecessor as a level 3 computer with a level 5 graphics card -- an MX440. By your standard, the older one would be a 3, while the newer one would be a 1.
Guess which one I feel is faster? The "level 1" computer -- I don't use it for 3D work.
I expect hardware speed increases will slow down a lot in the near future. If the fastest consumer PC today is a level 10, and the average PC is a 5, then five years from now, barring a new "killer app", the fastest computer will be around a level 15, but the average computer will still be today's level 5. Most people just don't need the extra power.
That depends. The stations in my area seem to have settled on a standard of one standard-def and one high-def subchannel, which may or may not be showing the same thing.
As for channel surfing, you can't do it the same, but you can usually surf through the guide, and see what's on that way.
Actually, that's a problem. TV guides haven't yet caught up with the concept of multiple subchannels, so if you want to find out what's on for anything other than the main subchannel for that station, usually the easiest way is to turn on the TV.
You know, that's a rather optimistic view of what would happen without any governmental intervention. For one thing, the absence of regulatory legislation would let businesses do whatever they wanted when they wanted, and that would mean screwing the customer and the environment whenever possible if it meant a cheap buck.
Actually, it it might not. Remember the exploding Ford Pinto gas tanks? Under the Libertarian view, upper management in Ford would be going to jail for manslaughter, rather than Ford as a whole paying a small lawsuit payout.
The anti-spyware bill is to spyware as the CAN-SPAM act is to spam.
In short, it's a bunch of feel-good legislation that legalizes a few shady practices, and add further laws against others. Nobody will bother to enforce it, and in a few years, it will have been forgotten.
It stops within a few seconds. I once had my car stall while driving down the road. By the time I got to where I wanted to stop the car, the pressure reserve had bled off, and I had to stand on the brake with both feet to stop.
There are a number of things that could be affecting this: 1) Some things, like GCC, don't support parallel compiling, so they don't benefit from distcc. 2) Things that need extensive preprocessing don't benefit much, since the preprocessor must be run on the local machine. 3) Compiling steps that don't use GCC can't be run remotely. For example, my server is currently approaching 36 hours to compile glibc, since setting up the locale information takes far more physical memory than the computer has.
The Code Red worm would have been an even larger problem if it had propagated using Apache rather than MS IIS.
At the binary level, "Apache" is actually several hundred different programs, on a dozen or so platforms, so a worm that targets one won't neccessarily work on another. As a related example, the "Slapper" worm had a dozen different attack mechanisms just to handle variations of SSL on Apache on Redhat Linux.
IIS, on the other hand, has only a few variations, with significant binary similarity between them, and they all run on the x86 platform. A worm can easily target most or all versions of IIS.
Slashdot Mirror
You sure about that? At one point, I had my current computer ripping one track from a CD, transcoding a second track, playing a third, compiling KDE, and browsing the web, all at the same time, and the music never skipped.
What's the downside?
You'll need a magnifying glass to read it?
Actually, starvation is about the only thing that wouldn't happen. There are certain advantages to being a net exporter of food.
So what do we need the extra power for?
CTSS was one of the first time-sharing operating systems and a direct ancestor of Linux.
Does this mean SCO has the code it needs to prove that Linux contains Unix code?
Level7_2004.
Then products can say there min. reqs are level7_2004
example:
Doom 3 Min. Req. Level 10_2005
Let's say I have a "Level 8_2006" computer. Will a "Level 10_2005" package run on it?
I've been tracking computers for the last four years. In the past year, the performace of computers purchased by the average Joe has not changed much.
I've been the "need for upgrade" feel. My previous computer, which I would describe as a "level 8" when I purchased it, started feeling very slow relative to what I wanted to do after about two and a half years. My current computer, which I would describe as a "level 9" when I purchased it, is still feeling fast enough for most tasks after almost three years.
I would describe the Windows box sitting next to me as a level 6 computer with a level 1 graphics card -- software-only 3D rendering. I would describe its predecessor as a level 3 computer with a level 5 graphics card -- an MX440. By your standard, the older one would be a 3, while the newer one would be a 1.
Guess which one I feel is faster? The "level 1" computer -- I don't use it for 3D work.
And once you do that, hardware manufacturers start finding ways to game the benchmarks, sort of like ATI's "Quack 3" fiasco a few years back.
I expect hardware speed increases will slow down a lot in the near future. If the fastest consumer PC today is a level 10, and the average PC is a 5, then five years from now, barring a new "killer app", the fastest computer will be around a level 15, but the average computer will still be today's level 5. Most people just don't need the extra power.
When they start digitizing 480 line analog signals, to send the equivalent of 3 channels in the same bandwidth, the quality will suffer.
Then why does 480i digital television look so much better than 480i analog television?
That depends. The stations in my area seem to have settled on a standard of one standard-def and one high-def subchannel, which may or may not be showing the same thing.
As for channel surfing, you can't do it the same, but you can usually surf through the guide, and see what's on that way.
Actually, that's a problem. TV guides haven't yet caught up with the concept of multiple subchannels, so if you want to find out what's on for anything other than the main subchannel for that station, usually the easiest way is to turn on the TV.
You know, that's a rather optimistic view of what would happen without any governmental intervention. For one thing, the absence of regulatory legislation would let businesses do whatever they wanted when they wanted, and that would mean screwing the customer and the environment whenever possible if it meant a cheap buck.
Actually, it it might not. Remember the exploding Ford Pinto gas tanks? Under the Libertarian view, upper management in Ford would be going to jail for manslaughter, rather than Ford as a whole paying a small lawsuit payout.
It doesn't directly. You'd need to find a 68k emulator -- not exactly a hard task.
They're not even making a serious effort to use the CAN-SPAM act against spammers in the United States. Why worry about people in Russia?
The anti-spyware bill is to spyware as the CAN-SPAM act is to spam.
In short, it's a bunch of feel-good legislation that legalizes a few shady practices, and add further laws against others. Nobody will bother to enforce it, and in a few years, it will have been forgotten.
root@localhost
And the best part is, it really works, unlike those fake addresses everyone else is suggesting!
I don't know about you, but that 90/month limit of their top tier is looking a bit low to me.
It stops within a few seconds. I once had my car stall while driving down the road. By the time I got to where I wanted to stop the car, the pressure reserve had bled off, and I had to stand on the brake with both feet to stop.
Is the book review template broken or something? This is the second review in as many days that's been misclassified.
Thanks! Now I can label it properly for my collection!
One example is that a whole bunch of articles from a 1911 dictionary were added.
It was the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica -- the last encyclopedia to fall into the public domain.
There are a number of things that could be affecting this:
1) Some things, like GCC, don't support parallel compiling, so they don't benefit from distcc.
2) Things that need extensive preprocessing don't benefit much, since the preprocessor must be run on the local machine.
3) Compiling steps that don't use GCC can't be run remotely. For example, my server is currently approaching 36 hours to compile glibc, since setting up the locale information takes far more physical memory than the computer has.
The Code Red worm would have been an even larger problem if it had propagated using Apache rather than MS IIS.
At the binary level, "Apache" is actually several hundred different programs, on a dozen or so platforms, so a worm that targets one won't neccessarily work on another. As a related example, the "Slapper" worm had a dozen different attack mechanisms just to handle variations of SSL on Apache on Redhat Linux.
IIS, on the other hand, has only a few variations, with significant binary similarity between them, and they all run on the x86 platform. A worm can easily target most or all versions of IIS.