One of the problems with sub-titles is that you're often staring at a very small section of screen trying to follow the dialog when you should be staring at the larger context (the whole screen) to be placing the dialog in proper context.
As a recent example, In Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, reading the sub-titles seriously distracted from the awesome backdrops/locations and/or subtle actions of others taking place in the background.
There's a time a place for both dubbing and sub-titles.
Sounds like you're the one that has no idea what you are talking about. Please, go learn something of the topic before you reply.
This has ZERO to do with windowing. If a packet was not delivered, how can it be delivered to the application?????? It can't. Therefore, IT MUST DELAY DELIVERY UNTIL THE MISSING PACKET IS RECEIVED. Period. Until such a time, the stack must buffer and hold the series of packets until the outstanding packet is delivered. Again, this has NOTHING to do with windowing. End of conversation.
Sometimes the need for revenge is just too great. Go back and read all the things that sub-humans were able to do to the rest of humanity. Also keep in mind that at that period in history, it was not well understood that the people would die in droves to defend their emporer. Such a concept was utterly foriegn and almost beyond comprehension -- even today. Also note that they had initally requested surrender indirectly through covert channels; it was not understood exactly what they wanted to bring to the table. It was leaked back that it had to be unconditional. It wasn't until two booms later they they willing raised the white flag and officially asked to talk. Unofficially, prior to the two booms, we really have no way of knowning exactly what was being brought to the table. Once it was official, they basically were asking for only one thing and that was official.
Now then, just imagine if the world had not been given a reason to tremble and fear the use of nukes...maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis may of turned out differently. Maybe they would of been used elsewhere for other reasons. After it's all said and done, the one thing that I do believe is, most humans are vastly stupid and having horrible yet vivid examples to reference of why something should not be done again, is one of the few things that even most stupid of people universally understand. Again, just imagine if such a reference were not previously burned into the world's mind. What if...
Who said the laser and the targeting system have to be placed together. There's no reason you can't have the laser held far back and targeting equipment much closer.
Which translates to mean, shells kept jamming the auto loader and no manual means for loading existed. Which basically means, you'd be spending tons of money just to move this hulk to the battle field for it to jam almost immediately with no manual means for loading and/or firing it.
Luckily, the goverment did see this problem coming and decided to change the paint scheme from traditional cammo colors to more modern white circles...one small than the next. The logic being, since the enemy would have so many targets to choose from, placing bull's eyes on these would confuse the enemy enough to become disfunctional....and humor a side, that was only one of many problems it had.
...reasons why part of the DoJ agreement should of prevented MS from pre-announcing any product just as they had previously done with IBM. Part of that agreement should of been a huge* fine for evey day missed from it's announced availability. Furthermore, they should not be allowed to announce any product further out than a maximum of 60-days from product availability.
(*) Something on the order of several million dollars per day. The point being is that it should be significant enough to prevent the fine from being just another cost of doing business.
What you're calling a fake TCP header is really a real TCP header. Furthermore, you've achieved nothing. All that you have done is add lots of overhead and causes every hop between the end-points to treat it as TCP (because it is). What you've really created isn't a fake TCP header, it's a REAL TCP packet with UDP being tunneled. The end result is that all of the problems that people specifically hoped to avoid by using UDP is suddenly realized. The net result is exactly the same tunneling UDP over a TCPIP connection.
In short, way too much effort for zero return, especially in sight of the fact that existing tunnel packages exist that will yield equally crappy results.
For phone calls, it doesn't matter if the data gets there two seconds after it was sent (ie. the reliable communication offered by TCP.) The data needs to get there now, or not at all.
This has nothing to do with it. TCP does not make for timely delivery. In fact, it's the exact opposite. TCP is sure to deliver the data while UDP is not. The point being, if a packet is dropped via TCP, it will delay the delivery of every following packet to the application until the missing packet it delivered. The result is garbeled and stalled conversations which research has proved is very annoying if not unusable. Conversely, UDP is quiet happy to drop packets and never care about it. If a small packet is dropped from a conversation, your brain fills in the blank just as it does when listening to a distant AM radio station. Best part, the dropped packet does not delay delivery of data to the application in any way. Thus, it results only in a small burp -- if that.
Then, of course, there is the difference in overhead. UDP requires slightly less overhead from a raw packet perspective not to mention the saved overhead in various control and reliability aspects when compared to TCP.
In short, there are many reasons why UDP is used for VoIP. If people expect to tunnel VoIP UDP over a TCP connection and see the same results, they're more than likely going to have a rude awakening.
Speakers work by having their coil modulated. That coil is probably pretty good at picking up random noise though I would of guessed them to of been better insululated. Nonetheless, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Except that's generally flawed. It makes MANY assumptions. It assumes that the errant signal gets OUT and it assumes that it can get IN, past the shielding. Shielding requirements for FAA approval is pretty good. It also assumes that the errant signal is strong enough to cause a note worthy harmonic.
Fact is, if you're using a phone or radio with your head shoved inside the plane's radio, you've got other problems to worry about.
Check around, you won't have many problems finding the informaiton that supports the network capacity issues that I'm asserting.
Fact is, cel phones and other electronic equipment had been in use for a long time on planes without problems. Fact is, *most* electronics emmit less RF "noise" than modern electronics do (which is more likely to cause a problem). It was only after the capacity issues were discovered that suddenly there was significant risk to ban them. Hmmm. Not hard to figure out what happened there.;)
I've actually wondered about that my self. My best *guess* is that it's because they decided it would be better to disallow any electronics rather than attempt to have their people selectively police electronic devices.
Another poster is also possibly correct. I can see that in the event of a minor emergency, they wouldn't want to the passengers to know. Minor emergencies happen all the time and rarely do the air crews tell the passengers unless they need to perform an emergency landing, etc... After all, it's bad for business.
The vast majority of the time there is no noticable effect, by on two different occasions I have had my laptop completely block my radio reception.
That must of been because your antenna was in close proximity to your source of interference. This is not the case with large airplanes. The vast majority of plane antennas are externally mounted with excellent RF insulation on the wires connecting the antenna and radio. Some are in the front of the plane to ensure minimal interference from the plane it self. In either case, your example does not apply in any way to typical commercial airplanes and their radio/electronic equipment.
Small craft and private planes have a different set of standards. I'm not sure exactly how they differ in detail but I've flown on MANY small craft with phones and various electronic gadgets and have NEVER had a single problem. My father and uncle are both pilots. Both own their own planes. Needless to say, I get to fly a lot.
...and everything to do with money. The primary reason they don't want you using cel phones from the air is that the cel networks were never designed with this purpose in mind. The result is a HUGE capacity burden is placed on the network. In stead of a single cel phone using two or maybe three cel towers, suddenly you have one phone using a dozen to two dozen sites. It degrades performance and increases cost for proper and healthy network operation.
This the real reason they don't want you using cel phones from planes. It has NEVER had anything to do with plane safety!
I've never been able to get my phone to work with digital service from the air -- not reliably anyways -- only enough to initate a call and hear it ring. Analog service, on the other hand, I've used many times before. I have no idea why digital doesn't work.
Back on planet earth, no one said otherwise. This is why they are a top shelf product. Having said that, you can make a better product and have it cost only a single digit percent in difference. If I had to spend 9% more to make a SCSI drive and can sale it for 5-20 times the price of an IDE drive, I'm fairly sure I would. Then again, that's fairly obvious...isn't it.;)
In the example about diamonds that I gave, diamonds really are better than the typical pebble out my front door...but they are not 1000x better (price wise). A $1000.00 diamond should be able to be purchased for a couple of bucks (if that). They can't be because it's a premium product. The reasons it's 1000x more expensive rather than mearly 5-20x is because of the cartels.
Plz do not attempt to refute this. Thx.
Please do not attempt to refute how the real world works. Thanks.;)
If diamonds weren't price-controled they would be incredibly cheap.
And if you substitute SCSI drive for diamond, your original statement is also true! I'm fully aware of what the situation is with diamonds. Obviously. If I had not been, I wouldn't of made the reference. Because of the fact that it's controlled by cartels, that's the reason why diamonds sale for 1000x or more its actual value. Since SCSI is mearly a top shelf product, you don't see such extreme differences but the market mechanics are the same.
If SCSI weren't price-controled they would be incredibly cheap. See how the same is true? SCSI is expensive because they want it to be. Period. It's artificially inflated in place. This is VERY COMMON for ANY premium product! Argue all you want, this is how the real world works!
Someone mod this guy up. He, "gets it!" SCSI is expensive because it's the premium, top-shelf product. Period. SCSI is expensive for the same reason that diamonds are. Both are highly desired but have no more value than the next drive (be it IDE or rock).
In other words, they are expensive because people want to keep them that way!
...and they're bleeding expenses at every single turn
This, I have no doubt of. On the other hand, it's the RIAA that's mismanaging the money. In other words, mismanaged or not, this is all risk they they *mostly* control and mitigate as they see fit.
We need to sell buggy-whips for cars, or at the very least buggy-whip bumper stickers. The tech sector is suffering enough without the RIAA dumping on us. (...like a drowning person climbing on his rescuer.)
That's an excellent idea. I wonder how many people of "the masses" will actually understand the implications of a buggy-whip for cars and how it relates to the RIAA?
You said, All of this sounds like an unfair contract, why do the artists sign on the dotted, and why don't they look elsewhere, for someone else to make a fair deal with?
When I had already said, I guess if you're hungry enough, you'll eat just about anything given to you.:(
It's the old starving artist syndrome. You take what can get feel lucky you have it. Which in today's climate, it more is less true. That doesn't make it right nor does it justify it.
Slashdot Mirror
For those of us that are in the dark, what is G4?
One of the problems with sub-titles is that you're often staring at a very small section of screen trying to follow the dialog when you should be staring at the larger context (the whole screen) to be placing the dialog in proper context.
As a recent example, In Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, reading the sub-titles seriously distracted from the awesome backdrops/locations and/or subtle actions of others taking place in the background.
There's a time a place for both dubbing and sub-titles.
This was specifically addressing the issue of preventing the laser from becoming a readily targeted threat.
Sounds like you're the one that has no idea what you are talking about. Please, go learn something of the topic before you reply.
This has ZERO to do with windowing. If a packet was not delivered, how can it be delivered to the application?????? It can't. Therefore, IT MUST DELAY DELIVERY UNTIL THE MISSING PACKET IS RECEIVED. Period. Until such a time, the stack must buffer and hold the series of packets until the outstanding packet is delivered. Again, this has NOTHING to do with windowing. End of conversation.
Sometimes the need for revenge is just too great. Go back and read all the things that sub-humans were able to do to the rest of humanity. Also keep in mind that at that period in history, it was not well understood that the people would die in droves to defend their emporer. Such a concept was utterly foriegn and almost beyond comprehension -- even today. Also note that they had initally requested surrender indirectly through covert channels; it was not understood exactly what they wanted to bring to the table. It was leaked back that it had to be unconditional. It wasn't until two booms later they they willing raised the white flag and officially asked to talk. Unofficially, prior to the two booms, we really have no way of knowning exactly what was being brought to the table. Once it was official, they basically were asking for only one thing and that was official.
Now then, just imagine if the world had not been given a reason to tremble and fear the use of nukes...maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis may of turned out differently. Maybe they would of been used elsewhere for other reasons. After it's all said and done, the one thing that I do believe is, most humans are vastly stupid and having horrible yet vivid examples to reference of why something should not be done again, is one of the few things that even most stupid of people universally understand. Again, just imagine if such a reference were not previously burned into the world's mind. What if...
Who said the laser and the targeting system have to be placed together. There's no reason you can't have the laser held far back and targeting equipment much closer.
It was flawed
...and humor a side, that was only one of many problems it had.
Which translates to mean, shells kept jamming the auto loader and no manual means for loading existed. Which basically means, you'd be spending tons of money just to move this hulk to the battle field for it to jam almost immediately with no manual means for loading and/or firing it.
Luckily, the goverment did see this problem coming and decided to change the paint scheme from traditional cammo colors to more modern white circles...one small than the next. The logic being, since the enemy would have so many targets to choose from, placing bull's eyes on these would confuse the enemy enough to become disfunctional.
...reasons why part of the DoJ agreement should of prevented MS from pre-announcing any product just as they had previously done with IBM. Part of that agreement should of been a huge* fine for evey day missed from it's announced availability. Furthermore, they should not be allowed to announce any product further out than a maximum of 60-days from product availability.
(*) Something on the order of several million dollars per day. The point being is that it should be significant enough to prevent the fine from being just another cost of doing business.
I'm guessing phone service is metered versus a flat rate there?
What you're calling a fake TCP header is really a real TCP header. Furthermore, you've achieved nothing. All that you have done is add lots of overhead and causes every hop between the end-points to treat it as TCP (because it is). What you've really created isn't a fake TCP header, it's a REAL TCP packet with UDP being tunneled. The end result is that all of the problems that people specifically hoped to avoid by using UDP is suddenly realized. The net result is exactly the same tunneling UDP over a TCPIP connection.
In short, way too much effort for zero return, especially in sight of the fact that existing tunnel packages exist that will yield equally crappy results.
For phone calls, it doesn't matter if the data gets there two seconds after it was sent (ie. the reliable communication offered by TCP.) The data needs to get there now, or not at all.
This has nothing to do with it. TCP does not make for timely delivery. In fact, it's the exact opposite. TCP is sure to deliver the data while UDP is not. The point being, if a packet is dropped via TCP, it will delay the delivery of every following packet to the application until the missing packet it delivered. The result is garbeled and stalled conversations which research has proved is very annoying if not unusable. Conversely, UDP is quiet happy to drop packets and never care about it. If a small packet is dropped from a conversation, your brain fills in the blank just as it does when listening to a distant AM radio station. Best part, the dropped packet does not delay delivery of data to the application in any way. Thus, it results only in a small burp -- if that.
Then, of course, there is the difference in overhead. UDP requires slightly less overhead from a raw packet perspective not to mention the saved overhead in various control and reliability aspects when compared to TCP.
In short, there are many reasons why UDP is used for VoIP. If people expect to tunnel VoIP UDP over a TCP connection and see the same results, they're more than likely going to have a rude awakening.
Thanks! Nice to know.
Anyone know what the status is of the O(1) scheduler is in relation to 2.6??
I've seen/read nothing but good stuff about it but never heard if it is the basis for the scheduler for 2.6? Anyone?
Not really. Much higher standards are required for commercial! Much! Not to mention there will be a huge difference in proximity.
Those together, make it a HUGE difference. To the point where it's doubtful it would much, if any effect for commercial flights.
That's a completely different effect.
Speakers work by having their coil modulated. That coil is probably pretty good at picking up random noise though I would of guessed them to of been better insululated. Nonetheless, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Isn't it possible that you have leaky insulation?
Except that's generally flawed. It makes MANY assumptions. It assumes that the errant signal gets OUT and it assumes that it can get IN, past the shielding. Shielding requirements for FAA approval is pretty good. It also assumes that the errant signal is strong enough to cause a note worthy harmonic.
;)
Fact is, if you're using a phone or radio with your head shoved inside the plane's radio, you've got other problems to worry about.
Check around, you won't have many problems finding the informaiton that supports the network capacity issues that I'm asserting.
Fact is, cel phones and other electronic equipment had been in use for a long time on planes without problems. Fact is, *most* electronics emmit less RF "noise" than modern electronics do (which is more likely to cause a problem). It was only after the capacity issues were discovered that suddenly there was significant risk to ban them. Hmmm. Not hard to figure out what happened there.
I've actually wondered about that my self. My best *guess* is that it's because they decided it would be better to disallow any electronics rather than attempt to have their people selectively police electronic devices.
Another poster is also possibly correct. I can see that in the event of a minor emergency, they wouldn't want to the passengers to know. Minor emergencies happen all the time and rarely do the air crews tell the passengers unless they need to perform an emergency landing, etc... After all, it's bad for business.
The vast majority of the time there is no noticable effect, by on two different occasions I have had my laptop completely block my radio reception.
That must of been because your antenna was in close proximity to your source of interference. This is not the case with large airplanes. The vast majority of plane antennas are externally mounted with excellent RF insulation on the wires connecting the antenna and radio. Some are in the front of the plane to ensure minimal interference from the plane it self. In either case, your example does not apply in any way to typical commercial airplanes and their radio/electronic equipment.
Small craft and private planes have a different set of standards. I'm not sure exactly how they differ in detail but I've flown on MANY small craft with phones and various electronic gadgets and have NEVER had a single problem. My father and uncle are both pilots. Both own their own planes. Needless to say, I get to fly a lot.
...and everything to do with money. The primary reason they don't want you using cel phones from the air is that the cel networks were never designed with this purpose in mind. The result is a HUGE capacity burden is placed on the network. In stead of a single cel phone using two or maybe three cel towers, suddenly you have one phone using a dozen to two dozen sites. It degrades performance and increases cost for proper and healthy network operation.
This the real reason they don't want you using cel phones from planes. It has NEVER had anything to do with plane safety!
I've never been able to get my phone to work with digital service from the air -- not reliably anyways -- only enough to initate a call and hear it ring. Analog service, on the other hand, I've used many times before. I have no idea why digital doesn't work.
They're expensive because they're better.
;)
;)
Back on planet earth, no one said otherwise. This is why they are a top shelf product. Having said that, you can make a better product and have it cost only a single digit percent in difference. If I had to spend 9% more to make a SCSI drive and can sale it for 5-20 times the price of an IDE drive, I'm fairly sure I would. Then again, that's fairly obvious...isn't it.
In the example about diamonds that I gave, diamonds really are better than the typical pebble out my front door...but they are not 1000x better (price wise). A $1000.00 diamond should be able to be purchased for a couple of bucks (if that). They can't be because it's a premium product. The reasons it's 1000x more expensive rather than mearly 5-20x is because of the cartels.
Plz do not attempt to refute this. Thx.
Please do not attempt to refute how the real world works. Thanks.
If diamonds weren't price-controled they would be incredibly cheap.
And if you substitute SCSI drive for diamond, your original statement is also true! I'm fully aware of what the situation is with diamonds. Obviously. If I had not been, I wouldn't of made the reference. Because of the fact that it's controlled by cartels, that's the reason why diamonds sale for 1000x or more its actual value. Since SCSI is mearly a top shelf product, you don't see such extreme differences but the market mechanics are the same.
If SCSI weren't price-controled they would be incredibly cheap. See how the same is true? SCSI is expensive because they want it to be. Period. It's artificially inflated in place. This is VERY COMMON for ANY premium product! Argue all you want, this is how the real world works!
Someone mod this guy up. He, "gets it!" SCSI is expensive because it's the premium, top-shelf product. Period. SCSI is expensive for the same reason that diamonds are. Both are highly desired but have no more value than the next drive (be it IDE or rock).
In other words, they are expensive because people want to keep them that way!
...and they're bleeding expenses at every single turn
This, I have no doubt of. On the other hand, it's the RIAA that's mismanaging the money. In other words, mismanaged or not, this is all risk they they *mostly* control and mitigate as they see fit.
We need to sell buggy-whips for cars, or at the very least buggy-whip bumper stickers. The tech sector is suffering enough without the RIAA dumping on us. (...like a drowning person climbing on his rescuer.)
That's an excellent idea. I wonder how many people of "the masses" will actually understand the implications of a buggy-whip for cars and how it relates to the RIAA?
You said, All of this sounds like an unfair contract, why do the artists sign on the dotted, and why don't they look elsewhere, for someone else to make a fair deal with?
:(
When I had already said, I guess if you're hungry enough, you'll eat just about anything given to you.
It's the old starving artist syndrome. You take what can get feel lucky you have it. Which in today's climate, it more is less true. That doesn't make it right nor does it justify it.