Well, I think that current Amiga users care enough (and IMHO porting Gecko iself is more interesting, without all that XUL bloat - with native GUI, like in Galeon or K-meleon)
Yes, sorry, one ten-milionth (morning here then, didn't wake up properly yet:P) But you're not right IMHO about "artificiallnes" of definition of meter , because the first definition IS STILL VALID! - just doesn't have "official" status, is not as accurate (but enough for everyday use - not for scientific and engineering though) and much more easy to use (yes, original definition of meter is very easy to use IMHO - it WAS possible to use it in ancient Greece even - measuring from the equator to a pole is not about direct measurement). The current def was defined because it was considered the easiest to use which have that level of accuracy. About rest of your opinions - yes, of course, it's better to use in every day live what's more convenient and to what people are used. In the same way as you prefer to say 10 pounds rather than 44.48 Newtons I'd say 5kg rather than 11,03 pounds... Ease of calculations about which you mention is extremely important IMHO - time doesn't get wasted. And, like it or not, FULL convertion to SI will happen sooner or later - we need global measurements system (the same as English basically became global language - resulting in millions of people with English skills as weak as mine:P). Actually, SI is one already - only two (yes, TWO) countries are little "resistant" - which doesn't prevent having by every scientific paper or documentation coming from these countries SI units.
which btw shows, IMHO, pottential risk involved in nanotechnology - DNA can do it, but think of all possible mutations, cancer, etc. - I wonder what would be the result of such "process errors" in case of nanotechnology
hmmm...now I don't know really...was yor post, Repugnant_Shit, a joke, or I've made a mistake in my poor English? I'm confused, somebody please help me:/
uops - two mistakes:P First: above should be a response to fstanchina. Second: how on Earth I confused division with divine...something bad is happening with my personal Engrish translator;>
There's a reason why Amtrak is (or was) the only profitable railway network in the world: it runs very few passenger trains. Railways don't like passengers because they're a pain in the ass, expect to get places in a hurry and complain if they're late. Freight is the only thing that makes economic sense on railways, with the exception of a few commuter services in and out of big cities with traffic congestion problems.
Actually, that is also dependant on density of population/size of the country/other factors. For example here, in Poland, cargo trains are MOST unprofitable of them all (polish national railways were divided into many companies, each doing "its job"), while most lucrative and profitable market is Intercity trains - fast passenger trains, stopping every ~70km at cities at least near to 100'000 citizens (well...on the line near which I live - and it's similar in other places), passing 90% of stations (yes, there's such density of them here)
Imagine how much fuel/electricity is wasted running almost empty trains the rest of the day. If saving fuel and electricity is what you're after, you'd do far better to promote telecommuting than 19th century transport technology.
Bullshit. Not only the energy economy during rush hours FAAAR exceeds this "waste", but average train uses 100 litres of cheap oil per 100km, or equivalent in electrical energy (which is even more efficient) - it means that even if only 20 people would use normal, full blown train for travel instead of a car, this would still be more efficient - and there's always more people (besides, if not, there is solution to this here: during rush hour use big, full blown train, but when there'll be small number of passangers use smaller trains, similar to tram somewhow, or even railbuses - only 30 litres of oil per 100km: http://ams1.lo3.wroc.pl/tomek/tournee.php?p=12767
http://www.tkk.net.pl/marcoos/podstr/zdj/13/03.jpg
http://www.koscierzyna.gda.pl/aktualnosci/archiwum/2003/fotki/szynobus2.jpg
http://murowana.jdm.pl/komunikacja/szynobus/img/ar t-213mrzut.JPG
http://www.pzlublin.pkp.pl/web/an11.jpg)
There's a VERY good reason why trains were the standard in transportation during 19th cetury - humanity didn't have acces to powerfull energy sources then, so we had to use efficient methods of transportation that could use available energy source at its fullest potential.
actually, I consider metric system to be the least artificial of them all - because it was based on simple principles. EVERYBODY on this planet, if they know this very simple principles can reproduce SI units (the simplest example is meter: take the part of meridian between equator and pole and divine it by 10000 - THIS is simple and natural. Using factors that are something like 1,758648 - this is unnatural). And please don't tell me that I'm biased because my country uses SI - for example, even though Fahrenheit scale was invented here, few hundred km from where I live (so I should be proud...), I find it idiotic too - temperature scale based on "normal" body temperature and outside temperature can't be any different than that (what person's temperature? perhaps he had fever? or was he dying and cold? what time of the year was it? what weather was outside?). As you can see, there's no way the original principles of Fahrenheit scale can tell us how this scale looks exactly - so reccurent principles were added later - that's what I call artificial. Celsius scale on the other hand...from the beginning it was "unfreeze water at sea level, boil water, divine by 100 - eventually do that few times, days apart, to minimise factor of pressure changes - you have a scale". Fully reproductable.
Oh, and if somebody will publish scientific paper with units different than SI...well, if he wants to be laughed at, why not, go ahead;P
Wrong, they're not writing about other side of the moon, but about the craters that are deep enough and are at such latitudes thet their bottom IS always in shadow.
Next time, RTFA
What's wrong in not "do it all at once approach"? I mean...nobody did anything differently in space to date, including the US. Example: Apollo 1 didn't go into orbit even (yeah, I know, black kind of humor...so?)
but to be fair SGI were also doing similar stuff back then too.
Yes, but several years after Matrox introduced video ram in 1976 (and I think SGI stuff was much more advanced (after all...few years later and different focus) and similar only in the way every graphics card with local video ram was/is)
Nobody can't deny that Matrox basically started graphic cards (though that was hardly a card;P ) business with its first product.
This "Bzzzt" was a brain short-circuit or something?
Because you see...quarter isn't 15. And that first video ram I was talking about obviously wasn't in a pc (I though I don't have to add this...)...simply because pc's didn't exist yet. Not to mention macs...
Re:Matrox put themselves in obscurity.
on
Video Card History
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I was talking about G400 (in MAX flavour) - 99, not 98;P
But you're right, with g200 it was very similiar...but that card didn't have proper OGL in win for faaar too long to be called top performer IMHO
Re:Matrox put themselves in obscurity.
on
Video Card History
·
· Score: 1
Agreed.
And I also think that the problem for Matrox is that they don't try to appeal to people who produce most hype.
Usually it means Matrox just doesn't have product for this particular type of people - which in itself isn't bad.
Unfortunatelly, reality shows us that only gamer cards with goal of max speed have enough hype surrounding them and are marked in consumer minds as good and worth the money:/
And that was true longer than most people think.
For example, know the reason why TNT2Ultra was only in few tests slower than G400MAX, in most on par? Because TNT2 didn't do real trilinear filtering (only bilinear with dither when choosing tri setting)
And I'll add only that Matrox basically invented (or at least first implemented in commercial product) video ram something like quarter century ago and that they had API capable of hardware accelerating 3d aps in a window in the times of win 3.11 (several years later Voodoo couldn't do it) And no mention about that company whatsoever:/ But hey, what can you expect from (probably) fps kiddie biased negatively towards Matrox among others - because if he'd be JUST fps kiddie (not anti Matrox and...) he'd mention the fact that for ~half a year in 99 Matrox was the leader BOTH in performance and quality...too bad since then only the second holds true.
...and there's Musepack which is horrible at low bitartes (never meant for them) but at high it is almost trasparent compared to cd.
And, fredrikj, please remember that what you said in one part of your post about some mp3s beeing good enough is purely subjective...that's is the way our hearing just is.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that you have Amigas without PCMCIA slot (eventually castrated from it), which you could use for cheap ethernet card, right?
Well, I think that current Amiga users care enough (and IMHO porting Gecko iself is more interesting, without all that XUL bloat - with native GUI, like in Galeon or K-meleon)
I wonder when OSS folks will release their version of Wind...no, wait, ReactOS team isn't sleeping, doing nothing, I think :P
I don't see why we shouldn't talk abuout moon mission - Apollo project was also announced long before US put it's first man into space.
Yes, sorry, one ten-milionth (morning here then, didn't wake up properly yet :P) :P). Actually, SI is one already - only two (yes, TWO) countries are little "resistant" - which doesn't prevent having by every scientific paper or documentation coming from these countries SI units.
But you're not right IMHO about "artificiallnes" of definition of meter , because the first definition IS STILL VALID! - just doesn't have "official" status, is not as accurate (but enough for everyday use - not for scientific and engineering though) and much more easy to use (yes, original definition of meter is very easy to use IMHO - it WAS possible to use it in ancient Greece even - measuring from the equator to a pole is not about direct measurement). The current def was defined because it was considered the easiest to use which have that level of accuracy.
About rest of your opinions - yes, of course, it's better to use in every day live what's more convenient and to what people are used. In the same way as you prefer to say 10 pounds rather than 44.48 Newtons I'd say 5kg rather than 11,03 pounds...
Ease of calculations about which you mention is extremely important IMHO - time doesn't get wasted.
And, like it or not, FULL convertion to SI will happen sooner or later - we need global measurements system (the same as English basically became global language - resulting in millions of people with English skills as weak as mine
which btw shows, IMHO, pottential risk involved in nanotechnology - DNA can do it, but think of all possible mutations, cancer, etc. - I wonder what would be the result of such "process errors" in case of nanotechnology
or "Bomb, Hydrogen, 20 megatons"
oh crap, 404 in two links - so in case you won't notice, just remove the spaces
hmmm...now I don't know really...was yor post, Repugnant_Shit, a joke, or I've made a mistake in my poor English? I'm confused, somebody please help me :/
uops - two mistakes :P First: above should be a response to fstanchina. Second: how on Earth I confused division with divine...something bad is happening with my personal Engrish translator ;>
Howewer - it is divining by multiple of 10 = the easiest operation imaginable in decimal system (perhaps apart from multiplication by 0 ;P )
weird...above message was divided to paraghraphs when clicking submit :/
There's a reason why Amtrak is (or was) the only profitable railway network in the world: it runs very few passenger trains. Railways don't like passengers because they're a pain in the ass, expect to get places in a hurry and complain if they're late. Freight is the only thing that makes economic sense on railways, with the exception of a few commuter services in and out of big cities with traffic congestion problems. Actually, that is also dependant on density of population/size of the country/other factors. For example here, in Poland, cargo trains are MOST unprofitable of them all (polish national railways were divided into many companies, each doing "its job"), while most lucrative and profitable market is Intercity trains - fast passenger trains, stopping every ~70km at cities at least near to 100'000 citizens (well...on the line near which I live - and it's similar in other places), passing 90% of stations (yes, there's such density of them here) Imagine how much fuel/electricity is wasted running almost empty trains the rest of the day. If saving fuel and electricity is what you're after, you'd do far better to promote telecommuting than 19th century transport technology. Bullshit. Not only the energy economy during rush hours FAAAR exceeds this "waste", but average train uses 100 litres of cheap oil per 100km, or equivalent in electrical energy (which is even more efficient) - it means that even if only 20 people would use normal, full blown train for travel instead of a car, this would still be more efficient - and there's always more people (besides, if not, there is solution to this here: during rush hour use big, full blown train, but when there'll be small number of passangers use smaller trains, similar to tram somewhow, or even railbuses - only 30 litres of oil per 100km: http://ams1.lo3.wroc.pl/tomek/tournee.php?p=12767 http://www.tkk.net.pl/marcoos/podstr/zdj/13/03.jpg
http://www.koscierzyna.gda.pl/aktualnosci/archiwum /2003/fotki/szynobus2.jpg
http://murowana.jdm.pl/komunikacja/szynobus/img/ar t-213mrzut.JPG
http://www.pzlublin.pkp.pl/web/an11.jpg)
There's a VERY good reason why trains were the standard in transportation during 19th cetury - humanity didn't have acces to powerfull energy sources then, so we had to use efficient methods of transportation that could use available energy source at its fullest potential.
actually, I consider metric system to be the least artificial of them all - because it was based on simple principles. EVERYBODY on this planet, if they know this very simple principles can reproduce SI units (the simplest example is meter: take the part of meridian between equator and pole and divine it by 10000 - THIS is simple and natural. Using factors that are something like 1,758648 - this is unnatural). And please don't tell me that I'm biased because my country uses SI - for example, even though Fahrenheit scale was invented here, few hundred km from where I live (so I should be proud...), I find it idiotic too - temperature scale based on "normal" body temperature and outside temperature can't be any different than that (what person's temperature? perhaps he had fever? or was he dying and cold? what time of the year was it? what weather was outside?). As you can see, there's no way the original principles of Fahrenheit scale can tell us how this scale looks exactly - so reccurent principles were added later - that's what I call artificial. Celsius scale on the other hand...from the beginning it was "unfreeze water at sea level, boil water, divine by 100 - eventually do that few times, days apart, to minimise factor of pressure changes - you have a scale". Fully reproductable. Oh, and if somebody will publish scientific paper with units different than SI...well, if he wants to be laughed at, why not, go ahead ;P
Been NOT working lately...browsing /. etc. All fine and smooth - I can still hear you guys. Without any slowdowns.
Oh yeah, from Poland btw.
who cares, I live on a more normal continent. you can move over if you want...
Wrong, they're not writing about other side of the moon, but about the craters that are deep enough and are at such latitudes thet their bottom IS always in shadow. Next time, RTFA
What's wrong in not "do it all at once approach"? I mean...nobody did anything differently in space to date, including the US. Example: Apollo 1 didn't go into orbit even (yeah, I know, black kind of humor...so?)
but to be fair SGI were also doing similar stuff back then too. Yes, but several years after Matrox introduced video ram in 1976 (and I think SGI stuff was much more advanced (after all...few years later and different focus) and similar only in the way every graphics card with local video ram was/is) Nobody can't deny that Matrox basically started graphic cards (though that was hardly a card ;P ) business with its first product.
This "Bzzzt" was a brain short-circuit or something? Because you see...quarter isn't 15. And that first video ram I was talking about obviously wasn't in a pc (I though I don't have to add this...)...simply because pc's didn't exist yet. Not to mention macs...
Actually, I was talking about G400 (in MAX flavour) - 99, not 98 ;P
But you're right, with g200 it was very similiar...but that card didn't have proper OGL in win for faaar too long to be called top performer IMHO
Agreed. And I also think that the problem for Matrox is that they don't try to appeal to people who produce most hype. Usually it means Matrox just doesn't have product for this particular type of people - which in itself isn't bad. Unfortunatelly, reality shows us that only gamer cards with goal of max speed have enough hype surrounding them and are marked in consumer minds as good and worth the money :/
And that was true longer than most people think. For example, know the reason why TNT2Ultra was only in few tests slower than G400MAX, in most on par? Because TNT2 didn't do real trilinear filtering (only bilinear with dither when choosing tri setting)
And I'll add only that Matrox basically invented (or at least first implemented in commercial product) video ram something like quarter century ago and that they had API capable of hardware accelerating 3d aps in a window in the times of win 3.11 (several years later Voodoo couldn't do it) :/
And no mention about that company whatsoever
But hey, what can you expect from (probably) fps kiddie biased negatively towards Matrox among others - because if he'd be JUST fps kiddie (not anti Matrox and...) he'd mention the fact that for ~half a year in 99 Matrox was the leader BOTH in performance and quality...too bad since then only the second holds true.
...and there's Musepack which is horrible at low bitartes (never meant for them) but at high it is almost trasparent compared to cd. And, fredrikj, please remember that what you said in one part of your post about some mp3s beeing good enough is purely subjective...that's is the way our hearing just is.