You need to remember that hard drives are NOT solid state devices. They have bearings and mechanical parts. The first rule of thumb when it comes to PCs or any kind of equipment is that "The question is not if the parts will wear out but when the parts will wear out."
That being said, the hard drives will wear out. Period. End of story. Some might die in a few months, some in a few years, and some might never die before you replace them.
Even more important is the conecpt of multiple spindles to do multiple jobs. If you have one drive that suddenly hits swap because you're doing something, not only will your system grind to a halt because the drive head is loaded with contention (it can only do one job at once, obviously) but you're adding that much more wear and tear.
With the swap on a separate drive (and preferably on a separate IDE channel, assuming that that's what you're doing), the main drive can do whatever it needs to do while letting the other drive take care of the swap. So, not only are you greatly increasing potential throughput and system efficiency, you're dramatically reducing wear and tear on the drive head mechanism.
This is one thing that I'm concerned about. I get a lot of spam where the headers are forged to make it look as though the originating computer is in the middle of the whole e-mail routing process. So, for anyone who doesn't know better, they look at the first IP address and assume that that's the guilty system. I'm finding that more and more this is not the case.
If their system gets such a spam, how exactly are they going to determine which IP address is the true, valid IP address? If they do nothing more than find the first IP address in the header chain, the spammers can easily fool the system. Hell, they could even use it to trick the IBM system to DDOS a completely innocent site that they just don't like!
This is not surprising at all. When I worked for a state government agency a few years back, we had to purchase upgrades for both Word and WordPerfect. Whereas the majority of users used Word, the legal department used WordPerfect exclusively. When I asked why, they explained that (at the time) over 90% of the law offices with which they corresponded used WordPerfect. I'm sure that the number has since eroded thanks to the common fallacy that Microsoft = Heaven and Bill Gates = God, but this news certainly does not come as a surprise.
And to those who questioned sending money out of the U.S., remember this: Microsoft is trying to take over the U.S.; Canada just bad-mouths it.:P
Now, for each of these differences, who decides which is the RIGHT way to do it -- the way we should keep, and which was the WRONG way to do it, the one which should change?
Oh, yawn. Anyone who makes a leap between war, hunger, and UNIX is doing nothing more than finding an excuse to be a sarcastic sod. But, I'll reply anyway.
Obviously, hardware and the way that it's addressed is going to vary from system to system, but would it *really* be so difficult to some up with some sort of UNIX standards body? Sure, it would take a number of years to really get anything out of it, but the only other alternative is further fragmentation, which will give Microsoft even more fodder in the future.
At least there seems to be some migration to uniformity with IBM and Sun allowing native Linux executions within the newest versions of AIX and Solaris. So the path is there. The question is... does that road have any forks of its own further down?
I run into this situation daily. Having to administer mostly Sun systems with a smattering of AIX and SCO systems, it's astounding to see how many differences there are between them. In fact, I was surprised to find out (the hard way) that there were some significant configuration changes just between Solaris 10 and everything else from Solaris 2.5 and up!
It's really ridiculous IMHO to see so many different options that are necessary in most./configure files based on the operating system. There are still some OSS utilities that will not compile in 64-bit on Sun systems, yet 64-bit Sun compilers have been around for years and the same utility will compile in 64-bit for just about all other UNIX variants! The days of real cross-platform compatibility with minimal reconfiguration (such as with CP/M) seem to be getting farther and farther away as more and more people keep fragmenting (even here in/.) into the various "MY version of UNIX can beat up YOUR version of UNIX! Nyah, nyah, nyah!"
I remember many years ago when I was told to install WordPerfect for UNIX on a Sun server. It was definitely WordPerfect for UNIX, but in small lettering on the disc it stated that it was for SCO UNIX! So, the UNIX fragmentation was obvious even back then. (Fortunately, the disc was purchased before I started working there, so I couldn't get blamed for that purchase error.)
All that the Windows crowd needs to worry about is what revision of Windows they need. The same can't be said for the UNIX world. Yes, each version and revision of the various UNIX flavors has its own strengths and weaknesses, but the huge number of versions and revisions certainly is great marketing fodder for the Redmonians.
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to imply that a trackball should be used by everyone. There are obviously reasons, such as yours, why mice are preferred.
I just don't understand why there seem to be a bazillion mice (most of which are pretty much the same anyway) for each model of trackball that's out there. Oh, well.
I understand what you're saying, though. I have large hands, and the only trackball that I could find at the time that would fit is the *ugh* Microsoft Trackball Optical. Believe me, I had to swallow my pride with that one, but I know that the Logitech competitive trackball that was also for sale would have been painful after a while.
From the looks of the picture, it should be called the "Beluga (Whale) Mouse"!
I'm forced to wonder, however, why there is such a focus put on mice and not trackballs. Every person that I've ever convinced to switch to a trackball has said that they'll never go back to mice again. It offers finer control than most mice and doesn't need any desk space except where it sits.
Then again, Windows, like a mouse (not the live kind), is cluttered, unrefined, requires a lot of room, and can be a pain in places other than the wrist, yet people still go for that even when there are better alternatives, too. So, I probably shouldn't be surprised of the effort to push mice instead of trackballs.
So, why not just change the listening port on your web server to something other than 80? This is a basic HTTP configuration and only requires and additional:port at the end of the URL.
I work in I.T. Don't make me attempt futile humour because my two week college course didn't go into far enough depth.
Only if you agree to change your sig to "I'm a holier-than-thou loser (hence the imaluser web site) that loves nothing more than to make inane comments to boost my own ego and because I have nothing better to do."
I don't know what's worse. The fact that you even felt the need to comment on someone's sig or the fact that you actually wasted time to do it. Very sad. Either way, I'm glad that I'm not as stuck up as you are.
There is a major difference between a parody web site and a web site that was created with the intention of fooling people into giving away information that can lead to criminal usage. I've never seen a parody web site ask for a social security number, bank number, etc.
Additionally, all parody sites I've seen either are blatantly obvious parodies or state somewhere on the site that they're parodies. Phishing sites won't do that because they're trying to convince you that they're genuine.
It depends on the screen, actually. I get far better results with a screen. It depends on the granularity of the sparkle material. Screens that have larger glass particles will have much more obvious "sparkling". The screen that I used had a really high density of sparkling material that was very, very fine and provided no obvious sparkling effects at approximately 15 feet away.
Also, don't use glossy walls. I tried that once. The reflection of the actual bulb can cause one section of the projected image to have a bright glow whereas the surrounding image is markedly dimmer, kind of like the way that a flashlight is usually brighter in the center. At least with a highly reflecive matte surface, that bulb glow is diffused so that the brightness is far more consistent across the entire frame.
I never did. Most movies transfer at 24 fps, although a lot of older, home formats used 15 fps, but digital camcorders record at 29.97 fps. I'm guessing that the higher speed of the camcorder compensated for that. If you go frame by frame, you might see spots where the projector was switching to the next frame, but at 1/30th of a second it would not be easy to see.
Regardless, I never did see any flickering of any note. Even if you look at transfered movies on DVD, such as the old Tom and Jerry cartoons, you might see that every sixth frame is a duplicate because of capturing 24 fps within ~30 fps. But it happens so quickly, even at every 1/6th second, that you don't notice it... well... I don't notice it.:)
They've had those out for a while, although I will admit that I haven't seen one lately. It was a single unit with a "input" on one side, a 45 degree mirror (not in reference to termperaure, as I'm sure some/. smart-asses are ready to mention), and a translucent screen on the other side. Aim the projector at the input, aim the camcorder and the translucent screen, and record away. It was something like $39.95 many years ago. I should have bought one when I had the opportunity, although there were varous types of machines of varying quality.
No, you are not! You can transfer 8mm and 16mm at home. It's not the most technical method, but I've done it before for a friend of mine and it worked beautifully.
Just project the 8mm/16mm film images onto a bright-white screen that has a lot of reflectivity to it, physically place a camcorder directly above the project - or slightly above and slightly behind - to minimize the "trapezoid" effect, record the projection with the camcorder, then use one of the many analog-to-digital bridges out there to transfer it to your PC.
If there is any audio, you can capture the audio either through the camcorder or through the PC's sound card and then synchronize.
This is not going to give you anywhere near the quality of a telecine transfer, but it work beautifully, particularly if the editing software that you use can enhance brightness, contract, and color.
Actually, the same method can be done for transferring 8mm with only one extra step.
I've done it by doing nothing more than shooting the 8mm image onto a bright-white screen, recording it with my camcorder, then transferring it to DVD. It certainly is not the same as a direct telecine transfer or the method that Warner is using, but for home use it works beautifully.
Regarding my previous comment, Pinnacle has since renamed the AV/DV Deluxe to the MovieBox DV.
Don't get me wrong - there are others out there that are NOT from Pinnacle. But Pinnacle is one of the better companies IMHO - and they've bought out some of the more prevalent competition, like Dazzle.
Please tell me that there was a ton of sarcasm in that statement. There are NUMBEROUS products out there to be analog-to-digital bridges for the exact purpose of transferring old VHS material to DVD.
I wonder how I can get one of these for my old home videos! I have all of the original VHS negatives, too! Oh, wait...
Seriously, though, it's nice to see studios taking such care of their movies. This is a far cry from a lot of what we've been getting for a the past few years. A lot of DVDs were nothing more than the DVD version of their laserdisc counterparts, and some low-budget DVDs were nothing more than transfers from VHS!
As a movie buff, it's great to see Warner going back to the original negatives do this. The only thing that's a concern for me is how they are going to select which movies will get this. Are they going to do this for posterity and history with all of their movies? Or are they only going to do this only with movies that can be turned around and sold on DVD? Obviously, if they're going be able to make a profit from this, they should. I'm sure that it's a huge effort. But are the more obscure movies that might not be as marketable going to get the same treatment in the future? Or are they going to be relegated to the warehouse never to be seen because "it's not worth it".
"Hi. I'm Stringy. It looks like you're shopping for feminine hygiene prodcuts today. Would you like some help in making your purchase?
* Heavy flow
* Light flow
* Daily pads
* I'm a man, you freakin' jackass
Please select how I might help you."
Slashdot Mirror
You need to remember that hard drives are NOT solid state devices. They have bearings and mechanical parts. The first rule of thumb when it comes to PCs or any kind of equipment is that "The question is not if the parts will wear out but when the parts will wear out."
That being said, the hard drives will wear out. Period. End of story. Some might die in a few months, some in a few years, and some might never die before you replace them.
Even more important is the conecpt of multiple spindles to do multiple jobs. If you have one drive that suddenly hits swap because you're doing something, not only will your system grind to a halt because the drive head is loaded with contention (it can only do one job at once, obviously) but you're adding that much more wear and tear.
With the swap on a separate drive (and preferably on a separate IDE channel, assuming that that's what you're doing), the main drive can do whatever it needs to do while letting the other drive take care of the swap. So, not only are you greatly increasing potential throughput and system efficiency, you're dramatically reducing wear and tear on the drive head mechanism.
This is one thing that I'm concerned about. I get a lot of spam where the headers are forged to make it look as though the originating computer is in the middle of the whole e-mail routing process. So, for anyone who doesn't know better, they look at the first IP address and assume that that's the guilty system. I'm finding that more and more this is not the case.
If their system gets such a spam, how exactly are they going to determine which IP address is the true, valid IP address? If they do nothing more than find the first IP address in the header chain, the spammers can easily fool the system. Hell, they could even use it to trick the IBM system to DDOS a completely innocent site that they just don't like!
This is not surprising at all. When I worked for a state government agency a few years back, we had to purchase upgrades for both Word and WordPerfect. Whereas the majority of users used Word, the legal department used WordPerfect exclusively. When I asked why, they explained that (at the time) over 90% of the law offices with which they corresponded used WordPerfect. I'm sure that the number has since eroded thanks to the common fallacy that Microsoft = Heaven and Bill Gates = God, but this news certainly does not come as a surprise.
:P
And to those who questioned sending money out of the U.S., remember this: Microsoft is trying to take over the U.S.; Canada just bad-mouths it.
Now, for each of these differences, who decides which is the RIGHT way to do it -- the way we should keep, and which was the WRONG way to do it, the one which should change?
... does that road have any forks of its own further down?
Oh, yawn. Anyone who makes a leap between war, hunger, and UNIX is doing nothing more than finding an excuse to be a sarcastic sod. But, I'll reply anyway.
Obviously, hardware and the way that it's addressed is going to vary from system to system, but would it *really* be so difficult to some up with some sort of UNIX standards body? Sure, it would take a number of years to really get anything out of it, but the only other alternative is further fragmentation, which will give Microsoft even more fodder in the future.
At least there seems to be some migration to uniformity with IBM and Sun allowing native Linux executions within the newest versions of AIX and Solaris. So the path is there. The question is
I run into this situation daily. Having to administer mostly Sun systems with a smattering of AIX and SCO systems, it's astounding to see how many differences there are between them. In fact, I was surprised to find out (the hard way) that there were some significant configuration changes just between Solaris 10 and everything else from Solaris 2.5 and up!
./configure files based on the operating system. There are still some OSS utilities that will not compile in 64-bit on Sun systems, yet 64-bit Sun compilers have been around for years and the same utility will compile in 64-bit for just about all other UNIX variants! The days of real cross-platform compatibility with minimal reconfiguration (such as with CP/M) seem to be getting farther and farther away as more and more people keep fragmenting (even here in /.) into the various "MY version of UNIX can beat up YOUR version of UNIX! Nyah, nyah, nyah!"
It's really ridiculous IMHO to see so many different options that are necessary in most
I remember many years ago when I was told to install WordPerfect for UNIX on a Sun server. It was definitely WordPerfect for UNIX, but in small lettering on the disc it stated that it was for SCO UNIX! So, the UNIX fragmentation was obvious even back then. (Fortunately, the disc was purchased before I started working there, so I couldn't get blamed for that purchase error.)
All that the Windows crowd needs to worry about is what revision of Windows they need. The same can't be said for the UNIX world. Yes, each version and revision of the various UNIX flavors has its own strengths and weaknesses, but the huge number of versions and revisions certainly is great marketing fodder for the Redmonians.
Heh! Maybe we should make deal. I'll supply mice for you to sell over there and you supply me with trackballs to sell over here. :)
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to imply that a trackball should be used by everyone. There are obviously reasons, such as yours, why mice are preferred.
I just don't understand why there seem to be a bazillion mice (most of which are pretty much the same anyway) for each model of trackball that's out there. Oh, well.
I understand what you're saying, though. I have large hands, and the only trackball that I could find at the time that would fit is the *ugh* Microsoft Trackball Optical. Believe me, I had to swallow my pride with that one, but I know that the Logitech competitive trackball that was also for sale would have been painful after a while.
From the looks of the picture, it should be called the "Beluga (Whale) Mouse"!
I'm forced to wonder, however, why there is such a focus put on mice and not trackballs. Every person that I've ever convinced to switch to a trackball has said that they'll never go back to mice again. It offers finer control than most mice and doesn't need any desk space except where it sits.
Then again, Windows, like a mouse (not the live kind), is cluttered, unrefined, requires a lot of room, and can be a pain in places other than the wrist, yet people still go for that even when there are better alternatives, too. So, I probably shouldn't be surprised of the effort to push mice instead of trackballs.
So, why not just change the listening port on your web server to something other than 80? This is a basic HTTP configuration and only requires and additional :port at the end of the URL.
... well ... you're SOL there.
Sendmail
I work in I.T. Don't make me attempt futile humour because my two week college course didn't go into far enough depth.
Only if you agree to change your sig to "I'm a holier-than-thou loser (hence the imaluser web site) that loves nothing more than to make inane comments to boost my own ego and because I have nothing better to do."
I don't know what's worse. The fact that you even felt the need to comment on someone's sig or the fact that you actually wasted time to do it. Very sad. Either way, I'm glad that I'm not as stuck up as you are.
There is a major difference between a parody web site and a web site that was created with the intention of fooling people into giving away information that can lead to criminal usage. I've never seen a parody web site ask for a social security number, bank number, etc.
Additionally, all parody sites I've seen either are blatantly obvious parodies or state somewhere on the site that they're parodies. Phishing sites won't do that because they're trying to convince you that they're genuine.
Apples and oranges.
It depends on the screen, actually. I get far better results with a screen. It depends on the granularity of the sparkle material. Screens that have larger glass particles will have much more obvious "sparkling". The screen that I used had a really high density of sparkling material that was very, very fine and provided no obvious sparkling effects at approximately 15 feet away.
Also, don't use glossy walls. I tried that once. The reflection of the actual bulb can cause one section of the projected image to have a bright glow whereas the surrounding image is markedly dimmer, kind of like the way that a flashlight is usually brighter in the center. At least with a highly reflecive matte surface, that bulb glow is diffused so that the brightness is far more consistent across the entire frame.
Mod parent UP! That's an *awesome* idea!
I never did. Most movies transfer at 24 fps, although a lot of older, home formats used 15 fps, but digital camcorders record at 29.97 fps. I'm guessing that the higher speed of the camcorder compensated for that. If you go frame by frame, you might see spots where the projector was switching to the next frame, but at 1/30th of a second it would not be easy to see.
... well ... I don't notice it. :)
Regardless, I never did see any flickering of any note. Even if you look at transfered movies on DVD, such as the old Tom and Jerry cartoons, you might see that every sixth frame is a duplicate because of capturing 24 fps within ~30 fps. But it happens so quickly, even at every 1/6th second, that you don't notice it
They've had those out for a while, although I will admit that I haven't seen one lately. It was a single unit with a "input" on one side, a 45 degree mirror (not in reference to termperaure, as I'm sure some /. smart-asses are ready to mention), and a translucent screen on the other side. Aim the projector at the input, aim the camcorder and the translucent screen, and record away. It was something like $39.95 many years ago. I should have bought one when I had the opportunity, although there were varous types of machines of varying quality.
No, you are not! You can transfer 8mm and 16mm at home. It's not the most technical method, but I've done it before for a friend of mine and it worked beautifully.
Just project the 8mm/16mm film images onto a bright-white screen that has a lot of reflectivity to it, physically place a camcorder directly above the project - or slightly above and slightly behind - to minimize the "trapezoid" effect, record the projection with the camcorder, then use one of the many analog-to-digital bridges out there to transfer it to your PC.
If there is any audio, you can capture the audio either through the camcorder or through the PC's sound card and then synchronize.
This is not going to give you anywhere near the quality of a telecine transfer, but it work beautifully, particularly if the editing software that you use can enhance brightness, contract, and color.
Actually, the same method can be done for transferring 8mm with only one extra step.
I've done it by doing nothing more than shooting the 8mm image onto a bright-white screen, recording it with my camcorder, then transferring it to DVD. It certainly is not the same as a direct telecine transfer or the method that Warner is using, but for home use it works beautifully.
Regarding my previous comment, Pinnacle has since renamed the AV/DV Deluxe to the MovieBox DV.
Don't get me wrong - there are others out there that are NOT from Pinnacle. But Pinnacle is one of the better companies IMHO - and they've bought out some of the more prevalent competition, like Dazzle.
Please tell me that there was a ton of sarcasm in that statement. There are NUMBEROUS products out there to be analog-to-digital bridges for the exact purpose of transferring old VHS material to DVD.
Pinnacle Studio AV/DV Deluxe is but one of the many.
I wonder how I can get one of these for my old home videos! I have all of the original VHS negatives, too! Oh, wait...
Seriously, though, it's nice to see studios taking such care of their movies. This is a far cry from a lot of what we've been getting for a the past few years. A lot of DVDs were nothing more than the DVD version of their laserdisc counterparts, and some low-budget DVDs were nothing more than transfers from VHS!
As a movie buff, it's great to see Warner going back to the original negatives do this. The only thing that's a concern for me is how they are going to select which movies will get this. Are they going to do this for posterity and history with all of their movies? Or are they only going to do this only with movies that can be turned around and sold on DVD? Obviously, if they're going be able to make a profit from this, they should. I'm sure that it's a huge effort. But are the more obscure movies that might not be as marketable going to get the same treatment in the future? Or are they going to be relegated to the warehouse never to be seen because "it's not worth it".
Well, many people have been in search of a perpetual motion engine or an additional natural resource. Maybe...?
1. Extract fat
2. Create fuel for automobile
3. Get fat from using automobile
4. Go to step 1
Would have been a lot funnier if it was formatted right the first time. Oh, well. Friday, late at night post. Sh*t happens. :)
And next time I'll his the damned "Preview" instead of "Submit" button! Grrrr.....
So let's reformat that...
* Heavy flow
* Light flow
* Daily Pads
* I'm a man, you freakin' jackass
Too late, I suppose. Oh, well.
"Hi. I'm Stringy. It looks like you're shopping for feminine hygiene prodcuts today. Would you like some help in making your purchase? * Heavy flow * Light flow * Daily pads * I'm a man, you freakin' jackass Please select how I might help you."
You know what's really sad? That was a copy-and-paste from the official house.gov site.