Whereas the ARM CPUs used in phones are under 0.5W.
In a device like a smartphone, you simply cannot find room to make the battery larger to make up for the extra power used. Not to mention the cost of the larger battery.
If you play it in the next week, they can easily detect that and surmise you pirated it.
Can anyone explain why you need a JTAG mode to play this game? The only reason I have heard that makes sense is that a JTAG mode allows you to unban your console (by changing the ID) so you can play it on Live with impunity. Anyone who doesn't have a JTAG mod will get their console banned and won't be able to use it anymore.
Cables cannot cause clock skew, because again long term the cable would have to somehow create or delete samples and a cable just can't do that. Cables can cause jitter, but the effect is vastly overstated.
Not reclocking data is a better way to deal with skew than reclocking is. Because if you reclock you have to drop samples or resample to deal with the long-term drift between the input clock and the reproduction clock.
Jitter on the input data can show up if you go straight to a DAC. But you can redesign your DAC to avoid it.
AES/EBU is a data format like S/PDIF. Either system can run over different forms of cable. AES/EBU is not an improved follow on to S/PDIF as you state. They were developed in parallel.
With IPv6 I can use NAT if I want. I can use a stateful firewall that breaks end to end reachability. Or I can use a stateful firewall that preserves end to end reachability. I can configure some hosts to have end-to-end reachability and some not.
If people want anonymity within their local network, then there will be a market for devices that do IPv6 address cloaking and you can buy one and use it to hide your addresses.
On a back porch or whatever. Then the kids can stand in their mom's shoes and compare their feet.
It does help make a connection.
Handprints are more convenient and can hung on a wall if you do them with plaster in pie tins. This also makes them portable in case you move to a new house.
In theory you could make molds of hands, feet, whatever. But people seem to see more realistic depictions such as this or lifesize cutout standees as being creepy. Not so with hand/footprints.
Why aren't thermostats the round Honeywell mechanical jobs anymore? They worked. Why are egg timers in your kitchen all electronic now? Mechanical timers worked. Why does your washing machine have electronic controls now instead of the big mechanical dial with 4 modes on it? Why is your electricity meter an electronic counter now instead of the mechanical spinning thing with 5 dials? Why does the tape deck in your car have an electronic tuner instead of a dial, variable capacitor and a string loop with a needle on it to indicate the station? Why are watches electronic (quartz) now instead of complex movements?
The answer is the same in all cases. It's because software and electronics are cheaper and do the job better than the old mechanical device did. Your washing machine can have more flexible modes, like the ability to extend the rinse cycle in increments, or even add a 3rd rinse. Your thermostat can have a setback mode to save energy when you aren't there. Your egg timer can be set to beep 5 minutes before the timer expires. Your electricity meter can count daytime electricity different than nighttime electricity. Your tape deck's tuner can select stations more accurately, have simpler preset stations (ever see how the 5 preset buttons on a radio with a tuner know worked? very complex) and is much smaller. Quartz watches keep time more accurately than mechanical watches, last longer and can have chronographs and other functions without adding a lot of cost.
And in the end, it's really the flexibility of software that wins out. Software can be programmed to do a lot more complex things and can be reprogrammed to do it slightly differently very cheaply, no need to change tooling as you would to change mechanical parts.
Remember what mechanical adding machines and cash registers looked like? What they worked like? A mechanical cash register had to have far more buttons (10 for each digit) and was limited in what it could do. Want to put in 5 identical items? You had to pull the lever or push sum 5 times. Meanwhile electronic cash registers don't just add. Sure they can calculate different tax rates on different items, that's just the beginning! You don't just put prices of items into the cash register, you put it items. And the cash register knows the price of the item, knows whether it has a special tax rate (like groceries sometimes do) and knows if you get a discount for buying 5 of them. And it also does inventory control, it sends info back to the central computer at the store to indicate they've sold 10 widgets. At the end of the day, the system figures out you've sold over 80% of the widgets in stock and the system suggests you order more widgets from your supplier.
That kind of "behind the scenes" stuff also takes place in cars. A modern car like this Jaguar emits fewer trace emissions in a year than your car does in a day and this is due to the tight engine control possible with a sensor package and control software.
A modern car knows if you're in the car. It unlocks the door if you're outside and pull the handle, it just senses your key (which is more of a fob) in your pocket. It auto locks when you get out. When you're inside, all you have to do to start it is touch a button, since it knows the key is inside, you don't have to insert it into a lock (and mechanical locks wear out, as I'm sure you with a 30 year old car can attest). When you touch the button, it cranks the car until it starts, no less, no more. No need to hold down the button until the engine catches. And if the car is already running it doesn't try to start the car and make a screeching sound. While its running, if your turn on the A/C and it puts more idle load on the engine, it applies more idle throttle to the engine so that it doesn't stall. If you let out the clutch a little too fast, it applies throttle to prevent a stall there too. If you put the clutch in and the gas at the same time, it will cut the engine off at 4,000 rpm to prevent over rev damage. You have an electronic parking brak
A computer takes 200W or so, that means it takes a kWh every 5 hours. A kWh costs about $0.15. So you're paying $0.02 - $0.03 in electricity per hour. Which means $0.60 is far more than enough to cover electricity.
I was playing with a friend's iPhone 4 with a signal meter app (available for jailbroken phones). And you can make the signal drop a ton just by hovering your finger over the line on the lower left (about 2mm away). You don't even have to touch it. So a diamond coating that prevents you from touching it wouldn't fix the problem.
It's glyphosate (Roundup) resistant. That doesn't mean you can't kill it, in fact the article lists several existing herbicides that kill it.
It just means Roundup doesn't (usually) work on it. So that means farmers in some areas no longer have the option of planting Roundup resistant crops and then hosing down their fields with Roundup. Note that this is no different than the situation before Roundup was invented. So Monsanto hasn't set farmers back, it's just that the advance Monsanto created for farmers is losing its value.
So how can you say farmers are worse off with Monsanto inventing Roundup and then having it lose value 40 years later than if Monsanto had never brought Roundup to market at all?
The product has a price. If you take the product without paying, you're stealing the product.
Why am I supposed to feel ad for those who had illegal free feeds and no longer do?
Bandwidth does cost money you know. I'll tell you what, I'll just start siphoning gas out of your car. Not so much that you can't afford it, but just a little. No harm done, right?
When DDR came out and was adopted, it had higher throughput than RDRAM. And both SDRAM and DDR had lower latency. So SDRAM actually was higher performing in many cases and DDR was in all cases.
In no time, you had to buy the fastest (most expensive) RDRAM 800 and in pairs in order to come even close to matching DDR on performance.
A bank of RDRAM 800 had 1600MB/sec bandwidth, while a single bank of 133MHz (DDR-266) had 2166MB/sec bandwidth. A single bank of PC-133 SDRAM had 1066MB/sec bandwidth and much lower latency. Most RDRAM systems (before the very end) had RDRAM 600 in them, for a bandwidth of 1200MB/sec.
RDRAM's advantage the whole time was the ability to put in a lot more RAM than with DDR because since each DIMM regenerated the signal before passing it on, you could daisy chain RAM as far away as you'd like, unlike where with SDRAM or DDR the total bus length was limited by the capacitance placed on by all the DIMMs on the bus.
In essence, RDRAM had the same advantages and disadvantages of FB-DIMMs, which was also driven out of the market by cheaper and faster DDR3.
The real problem with the DMCA is that it criminalizes "trafficking" in anti-circumvention technology, even when both the provider and the recipient intend to make legal copies.
I think you mean it criminalizes "trafficking" in circumvention technology.
The summary uses MPEG-LA and MPEG interchangeably, this is not correct.
MPEG-LA is not affiliated with MPEG, and so if every file were in "MPEG format" as the summary says, it wouldn't be much of an issue (especially to the MPEG-LA!). The concern is that at any given time nearly every video has once been in a format that is covered by the MPEG-LA patent pools.
As another note, has it not escaped slashdot that it is the same person saying this every time? It'd be great to see a notation "another article from the same person who tried to get you excited about the ubiquity of H.264 last time" on these posts.
Yes, don't trust anything unless you absolutely have to. In user land, for example, we have SELinux and Apparmor to prevent applications from accessing things they shouldn't; protecting the kernel is obviously harder.
You can set Windows to trust even less. In general a user can't install drivers at all on Windows, it takes an administrator to do it. If the administrator decides to install something without checking it well first, you're boned no matter what other steps you took.
Nor will Linux drivers be loaded automatically from a random USB key just because you browsed there
This is not a problem with the model, it is a bug in the implementation. Are you saying linux doesn't have any coding errors in it?
With this bug, the code only runs as the current user. So if the current user isn't an administrator, there's no risk of infection of the entire system although everything that user does can be affected. Again this isn't any different from linux.
No. It's different. Skip the non obvious non intuitive crap. It's only obvious to you because you are familiar with it being done in a different way, and no computer program is intuitive. Your real problem is that Gimp doesn't work like Photoshop. A crime on a par with child molestation no doubt, but sorry to tell you. It is permitted to do stuff in differnt ways. Gimp is not Photoshop. Gimp is not attempting to be a copy of Photoshop. Gimp is not legally or morally bound to do stuff like Photoshop. Gimp is not your answer to the problem of not wanting to pay the bill to Adobe. Do you complain that you can only hammer small nails into wood with a screw driver, and that the handle keeps shattering?
That's not the same. This is not arbitrary. When I made a layer transparent, I don't expect it to become more opaque. No one would. You had the same thing happen to you and THEN you had to find out how to fix it, you say so above. It's an actual bug, a behavior that most reasonable people would not expect. Not from Photoshop, not from The GIMP. Not from any image editing app. Can you name another image editing app that does it this way? It's not just different, it's actually wrong. No, it's not end of the world wrong if you go find that slider elsewhere. But it is never what anyone would expect to happen, and so it's a bad behavior.
Can't Photoshop be set to use the last action with the tool in question as it's current setting?
Not only can it, but I'm pretty sure it's the default for it to remember.. Most tools in Photoshop work that way. So that means unless your friend us using someone else's workspace (i.e. copy of Photoshop), then they set it into that mode, so they shouldn't be completely baffled by the concept of selections using a fixed ratio or how to change it. I have to say that I personally find it odd that it remembers the fixed ratio modifier across launches of Photoshop (I just checked in my copy of CS3, it does do so), that doesn't fit my usage model. I suppose it does for some other customers though.
Anyway, probably your friend had set it to fixed last time or else someone else set it when using Photoshop on that machine before him, so I can see how this behavior would be unexpected to him. It would be to me too.
Just so you know, generally you should use the crop tool to crop anyway, not the selection tool. Both work (usually!), so it's not like he made a mistake. But the crop tool is easier to work with because you can adjust it more easily before committing to the crop.
Every day new digital signatures (for example, SSL certificates) are issued using SHA-1. You can go to https://www.google.com/ right now and check the cert chain and see the signatures for the Thawte intermediate authority and www.google.com are secured by SHA-1 hashes.
So although SHA-1 has shown a few issues so far, it's not really properly deprecated yet. And if it were (is?) broken, virtually all SSL sites would be susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks.
Yes, latency and bandwidth are different concepts. But depending on the message sent, bandwidth can effect latency.
Latency is the time it takes for the message to start coming through. But you don't get the end of the message until a time later which is determined by message size divided by bandwidth. And you can't act upon the tail end of the message until you've received it.
So in the case of OnLive you're talking about a frame of video. They can't draw an entire frame until they've receive the entire frame. And that point it time is determined (among other things) by the latency of your network connection plus the bandwidth of your network connection.
You can think of latency as the minimum time it can take a piece of information you asked for to get to you. But if you asked for more than the smallest transmittable unit, then the total time it takes to get the information is determined by latency and bandwidth.
So stop banging your head, unless you are doing so to open it up to let new information in.
If you think about it a little.. There are drawbacks to having the layer go transparent by default too. If instead of a fully occupied layer, the layer you want to resize just contains an already cut out image on a transparent background, or some text, do you really want that to go transparent as you resize?
I don't expect the layer to go transparent by default. I expect it to be transparent because I already set it to be transparent. And I set it to be transparent, by the way, because I wanted it to be transparent. Not just during resize, but in all cases.
You're not really supposed to guess. You are supposed to learn the way the program works if you want to use it to it's fullest extent.
I think you missed my point. I made a layer transparent and it became untransparent when I started to resize it. This is non-obvious and non-intuitive. It didn't happen in Photoshop and it shouldn't happen in the GIMP. I'm not expecting it to read my mind and guess that a layer should be transparent during resize when it isn't transparent normally. But I also don't expect it to undo what I have already set by making a translucent layer opaque during resizing.
A friend of mine was having problems getting the cropping tool to allow him to make the crop he wanted in Photoshop. He didn't notice the aspect ratio was defaulting to a specific fixed one, and he wanted to do a freehand crop.
To echo your point.. Why should he be expected to guess the check box need to be unchecked?
I agree it would be odd if the crop tool defaulted to a constrained aspect crop in Photoshop. But it doesn't. I've never seen it default to this in any version of Photoshop I have used including CS3 that I just tried. Maybe he was holding shift?
I was using 2.6.8 on a Mac, which uses X for drawing.
You can make layers translucent, they just become opaque during resizing. A person above says there is a separate preview translucency slider for this and he might be right. But I didn't look because I wanted the layer to be translucent so I had already set it to 50%, if I wanted it only to be translucent during resizing maybe I would have looked in a different place for another slider.
You're saying there's another opacity slider that overrides the layer opacity during a resize?
Well, that's interesting to know. I'm not at all sure why I was supposed to guess that. I would presume that a layer when being resized would be no more opaque than it is when it isn't being resized.
Slashdot Mirror
You can turn off the browser plugin.
Atom is maybe a 2W chip at best.
Whereas the ARM CPUs used in phones are under 0.5W.
In a device like a smartphone, you simply cannot find room to make the battery larger to make up for the extra power used. Not to mention the cost of the larger battery.
If you play it in the next week, they can easily detect that and surmise you pirated it.
Can anyone explain why you need a JTAG mode to play this game? The only reason I have heard that makes sense is that a JTAG mode allows you to unban your console (by changing the ID) so you can play it on Live with impunity. Anyone who doesn't have a JTAG mod will get their console banned and won't be able to use it anymore.
Cables cannot cause clock skew, because again long term the cable would have to somehow create or delete samples and a cable just can't do that. Cables can cause jitter, but the effect is vastly overstated.
Not reclocking data is a better way to deal with skew than reclocking is. Because if you reclock you have to drop samples or resample to deal with the long-term drift between the input clock and the reproduction clock.
Jitter on the input data can show up if you go straight to a DAC. But you can redesign your DAC to avoid it.
AES/EBU is a data format like S/PDIF. Either system can run over different forms of cable. AES/EBU is not an improved follow on to S/PDIF as you state. They were developed in parallel.
With IPv6 I can use NAT if I want. I can use a stateful firewall that breaks end to end reachability. Or I can use a stateful firewall that preserves end to end reachability. I can configure some hosts to have end-to-end reachability and some not.
If people want anonymity within their local network, then there will be a market for devices that do IPv6 address cloaking and you can buy one and use it to hide your addresses.
On a back porch or whatever. Then the kids can stand in their mom's shoes and compare their feet.
It does help make a connection.
Handprints are more convenient and can hung on a wall if you do them with plaster in pie tins. This also makes them portable in case you move to a new house.
In theory you could make molds of hands, feet, whatever. But people seem to see more realistic depictions such as this or lifesize cutout standees as being creepy. Not so with hand/footprints.
Why aren't thermostats the round Honeywell mechanical jobs anymore? They worked.
Why are egg timers in your kitchen all electronic now? Mechanical timers worked.
Why does your washing machine have electronic controls now instead of the big mechanical dial with 4 modes on it?
Why is your electricity meter an electronic counter now instead of the mechanical spinning thing with 5 dials?
Why does the tape deck in your car have an electronic tuner instead of a dial, variable capacitor and a string loop with a needle on it to indicate the station?
Why are watches electronic (quartz) now instead of complex movements?
The answer is the same in all cases. It's because software and electronics are cheaper and do the job better than the old mechanical device did. Your washing machine can have more flexible modes, like the ability to extend the rinse cycle in increments, or even add a 3rd rinse. Your thermostat can have a setback mode to save energy when you aren't there. Your egg timer can be set to beep 5 minutes before the timer expires. Your electricity meter can count daytime electricity different than nighttime electricity. Your tape deck's tuner can select stations more accurately, have simpler preset stations (ever see how the 5 preset buttons on a radio with a tuner know worked? very complex) and is much smaller. Quartz watches keep time more accurately than mechanical watches, last longer and can have chronographs and other functions without adding a lot of cost.
And in the end, it's really the flexibility of software that wins out. Software can be programmed to do a lot more complex things and can be reprogrammed to do it slightly differently very cheaply, no need to change tooling as you would to change mechanical parts.
Remember what mechanical adding machines and cash registers looked like? What they worked like? A mechanical cash register had to have far more buttons (10 for each digit) and was limited in what it could do. Want to put in 5 identical items? You had to pull the lever or push sum 5 times. Meanwhile electronic cash registers don't just add. Sure they can calculate different tax rates on different items, that's just the beginning! You don't just put prices of items into the cash register, you put it items. And the cash register knows the price of the item, knows whether it has a special tax rate (like groceries sometimes do) and knows if you get a discount for buying 5 of them. And it also does inventory control, it sends info back to the central computer at the store to indicate they've sold 10 widgets. At the end of the day, the system figures out you've sold over 80% of the widgets in stock and the system suggests you order more widgets from your supplier.
That kind of "behind the scenes" stuff also takes place in cars. A modern car like this Jaguar emits fewer trace emissions in a year than your car does in a day and this is due to the tight engine control possible with a sensor package and control software.
A modern car knows if you're in the car. It unlocks the door if you're outside and pull the handle, it just senses your key (which is more of a fob) in your pocket. It auto locks when you get out. When you're inside, all you have to do to start it is touch a button, since it knows the key is inside, you don't have to insert it into a lock (and mechanical locks wear out, as I'm sure you with a 30 year old car can attest). When you touch the button, it cranks the car until it starts, no less, no more. No need to hold down the button until the engine catches. And if the car is already running it doesn't try to start the car and make a screeching sound. While its running, if your turn on the A/C and it puts more idle load on the engine, it applies more idle throttle to the engine so that it doesn't stall. If you let out the clutch a little too fast, it applies throttle to prevent a stall there too. If you put the clutch in and the gas at the same time, it will cut the engine off at 4,000 rpm to prevent over rev damage. You have an electronic parking brak
A computer takes 200W or so, that means it takes a kWh every 5 hours. A kWh costs about $0.15. So you're paying $0.02 - $0.03 in electricity per hour. Which means $0.60 is far more than enough to cover electricity.
It's a terrible wage though.
I was playing with a friend's iPhone 4 with a signal meter app (available for jailbroken phones). And you can make the signal drop a ton just by hovering your finger over the line on the lower left (about 2mm away). You don't even have to touch it. So a diamond coating that prevents you from touching it wouldn't fix the problem.
http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_high_incidence_arkansas/index.html
It's glyphosate (Roundup) resistant. That doesn't mean you can't kill it, in fact the article lists several existing herbicides that kill it.
It just means Roundup doesn't (usually) work on it. So that means farmers in some areas no longer have the option of planting Roundup resistant crops and then hosing down their fields with Roundup. Note that this is no different than the situation before Roundup was invented. So Monsanto hasn't set farmers back, it's just that the advance Monsanto created for farmers is losing its value.
So how can you say farmers are worse off with Monsanto inventing Roundup and then having it lose value 40 years later than if Monsanto had never brought Roundup to market at all?
Just because the price is high doesn't make it not stealing.
If you think the product provides a poor value, then don't buy it and do without. Just as you would do if it were a shirt in a store.
The product has a price. If you take the product without paying, you're stealing the product.
Why am I supposed to feel ad for those who had illegal free feeds and no longer do?
Bandwidth does cost money you know. I'll tell you what, I'll just start siphoning gas out of your car. Not so much that you can't afford it, but just a little. No harm done, right?
It was only faster for a very short period.
When DDR came out and was adopted, it had higher throughput than RDRAM. And both SDRAM and DDR had lower latency. So SDRAM actually was higher performing in many cases and DDR was in all cases.
In no time, you had to buy the fastest (most expensive) RDRAM 800 and in pairs in order to come even close to matching DDR on performance.
A bank of RDRAM 800 had 1600MB/sec bandwidth, while a single bank of 133MHz (DDR-266) had 2166MB/sec bandwidth. A single bank of PC-133 SDRAM had 1066MB/sec bandwidth and much lower latency. Most RDRAM systems (before the very end) had RDRAM 600 in them, for a bandwidth of 1200MB/sec.
RDRAM's advantage the whole time was the ability to put in a lot more RAM than with DDR because since each DIMM regenerated the signal before passing it on, you could daisy chain RAM as far away as you'd like, unlike where with SDRAM or DDR the total bus length was limited by the capacitance placed on by all the DIMMs on the bus.
In essence, RDRAM had the same advantages and disadvantages of FB-DIMMs, which was also driven out of the market by cheaper and faster DDR3.
The real problem with the DMCA is that it criminalizes "trafficking" in anti-circumvention technology, even when both the provider and the recipient intend to make legal copies.
I think you mean it criminalizes "trafficking" in circumvention technology.
The summary uses MPEG-LA and MPEG interchangeably, this is not correct.
MPEG-LA is not affiliated with MPEG, and so if every file were in "MPEG format" as the summary says, it wouldn't be much of an issue (especially to the MPEG-LA!). The concern is that at any given time nearly every video has once been in a format that is covered by the MPEG-LA patent pools.
As another note, has it not escaped slashdot that it is the same person saying this every time? It'd be great to see a notation "another article from the same person who tried to get you excited about the ubiquity of H.264 last time" on these posts.
Or digitally retouching.
Yes, don't trust anything unless you absolutely have to. In user land, for example, we have SELinux and Apparmor to prevent applications from accessing things they shouldn't; protecting the kernel is obviously harder.
You can set Windows to trust even less. In general a user can't install drivers at all on Windows, it takes an administrator to do it. If the administrator decides to install something without checking it well first, you're boned no matter what other steps you took.
Nor will Linux drivers be loaded automatically from a random USB key just because you browsed there
This is not a problem with the model, it is a bug in the implementation. Are you saying linux doesn't have any coding errors in it?
With this bug, the code only runs as the current user. So if the current user isn't an administrator, there's no risk of infection of the entire system although everything that user does can be affected. Again this isn't any different from linux.
No. It's different. Skip the non obvious non intuitive crap. It's only obvious to you because you are familiar with it being done in a different way, and no computer program is intuitive. Your real problem is that Gimp doesn't work like Photoshop. A crime on a par with child molestation no doubt, but sorry to tell you. It is permitted to do stuff in differnt ways. Gimp is not Photoshop. Gimp is not attempting to be a copy of Photoshop. Gimp is not legally or morally bound to do stuff like Photoshop. Gimp is not your answer to the problem of not wanting to pay the bill to Adobe. Do you complain that you can only hammer small nails into wood with a screw driver, and that the handle keeps shattering?
That's not the same. This is not arbitrary. When I made a layer transparent, I don't expect it to become more opaque. No one would. You had the same thing happen to you and THEN you had to find out how to fix it, you say so above. It's an actual bug, a behavior that most reasonable people would not expect. Not from Photoshop, not from The GIMP. Not from any image editing app. Can you name another image editing app that does it this way? It's not just different, it's actually wrong. No, it's not end of the world wrong if you go find that slider elsewhere. But it is never what anyone would expect to happen, and so it's a bad behavior.
Can't Photoshop be set to use the last action with the tool in question as it's current setting?
Not only can it, but I'm pretty sure it's the default for it to remember.. Most tools in Photoshop work that way. So that means unless your friend us using someone else's workspace (i.e. copy of Photoshop), then they set it into that mode, so they shouldn't be completely baffled by the concept of selections using a fixed ratio or how to change it. I have to say that I personally find it odd that it remembers the fixed ratio modifier across launches of Photoshop (I just checked in my copy of CS3, it does do so), that doesn't fit my usage model. I suppose it does for some other customers though.
Anyway, probably your friend had set it to fixed last time or else someone else set it when using Photoshop on that machine before him, so I can see how this behavior would be unexpected to him. It would be to me too.
Just so you know, generally you should use the crop tool to crop anyway, not the selection tool. Both work (usually!), so it's not like he made a mistake. But the crop tool is easier to work with because you can adjust it more easily before committing to the crop.
Every day new digital signatures (for example, SSL certificates) are issued using SHA-1. You can go to https://www.google.com/ right now and check the cert chain and see the signatures for the Thawte intermediate authority and www.google.com are secured by SHA-1 hashes.
So although SHA-1 has shown a few issues so far, it's not really properly deprecated yet. And if it were (is?) broken, virtually all SSL sites would be susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks.
Yes, latency and bandwidth are different concepts. But depending on the message sent, bandwidth can effect latency.
Latency is the time it takes for the message to start coming through. But you don't get the end of the message until a time later which is determined by message size divided by bandwidth. And you can't act upon the tail end of the message until you've received it.
So in the case of OnLive you're talking about a frame of video. They can't draw an entire frame until they've receive the entire frame. And that point it time is determined (among other things) by the latency of your network connection plus the bandwidth of your network connection.
You can think of latency as the minimum time it can take a piece of information you asked for to get to you. But if you asked for more than the smallest transmittable unit, then the total time it takes to get the information is determined by latency and bandwidth.
So stop banging your head, unless you are doing so to open it up to let new information in.
If you think about it a little.. There are drawbacks to having the layer go transparent by default too. If instead of a fully occupied layer, the layer you want to resize just contains an already cut out image on a transparent background, or some text, do you really want that to go transparent as you resize?
I don't expect the layer to go transparent by default. I expect it to be transparent because I already set it to be transparent. And I set it to be transparent, by the way, because I wanted it to be transparent. Not just during resize, but in all cases.
You're not really supposed to guess. You are supposed to learn the way the program works if you want to use it to it's fullest extent.
I think you missed my point. I made a layer transparent and it became untransparent when I started to resize it. This is non-obvious and non-intuitive. It didn't happen in Photoshop and it shouldn't happen in the GIMP. I'm not expecting it to read my mind and guess that a layer should be transparent during resize when it isn't transparent normally. But I also don't expect it to undo what I have already set by making a translucent layer opaque during resizing.
A friend of mine was having problems getting the cropping tool to allow him to make the crop he wanted in Photoshop. He didn't notice the aspect ratio was defaulting to a specific fixed one, and he wanted to do a freehand crop.
To echo your point.. Why should he be expected to guess the check box need to be unchecked?
I agree it would be odd if the crop tool defaulted to a constrained aspect crop in Photoshop. But it doesn't. I've never seen it default to this in any version of Photoshop I have used including CS3 that I just tried. Maybe he was holding shift?
Has a rate of uptake that exceeds any previous codec?
Where do you get that information from?
I was using 2.6.8 on a Mac, which uses X for drawing.
You can make layers translucent, they just become opaque during resizing. A person above says there is a separate preview translucency slider for this and he might be right. But I didn't look because I wanted the layer to be translucent so I had already set it to 50%, if I wanted it only to be translucent during resizing maybe I would have looked in a different place for another slider.
I set the layer opacity to 50%.
You're saying there's another opacity slider that overrides the layer opacity during a resize?
Well, that's interesting to know. I'm not at all sure why I was supposed to guess that. I would presume that a layer when being resized would be no more opaque than it is when it isn't being resized.
The name The GIMP is ridiculous. It should be called Ogg GIMP. That'll fix it right up.