Fast booting is just a matter of spending time tweaking things. Heck, I've seen BSD systems that boot in about 5 seconds. Linux boots a hell of a lot faster if you compile a custom kernel that excludes support for hardware you don't have, and you can set up config files to just tell the driver where/what stuff is instead of having it probe for it.
It's cheap enough, but it's not small enough. I have a laptop with a 15" screen, I paid over $2000 for it. I never use it because it's too damn big. It has actually sat in my closet for over a year at a time. I don't even take it with me on vacations anymore because it's just too big to bother with.
This laptop is sufficient for my needs, and I'm likely to actually carry it because it's small and light enough to be reasonably carried around most everywhere.
I was just complaining that I couldn't find a laptop that actually meets my travel needs. All I need is something to check email, do a little web browsing, and maybe view photos and do a little remote SSH to take care of problems at work. I have a laptop but hate to carry it because it's too big.
This is actually exactly what I've been looking for. I'm so in line for this.
Good for you. Yes, cashiers are usually taken aback when you do that. I once walked into a home-improvement store and picked up a small item, gone to the front to pay for it, then put it back, explaining that I'd accidentally put one in my pocket while looking for other stuff, and didn't realize I had it until a few days later. It was about a $2 item so I wasn't going to make a special trip for it, but I did pay for it eventually.
IMHO these people are certainly guilty of something, though IINAL so I don't know exactly what. They took advantage of a situation and took money they clearly realized was not theirs. I don't think this is any different than walking out of a store without paying if you get to the front and find the cashier is in the bathroom. I've said it before, these are not difficult decisions; you know what's right, you just need to choose to do it. "Stickin' it to the man" is simply rationalization of your own immorality.
What's sad here is that apparently a couple dozen people found out about this and it nobody had the honesty to report it.
I know 3 people who have them, and have talked to a few more. They all say 100 points for style, -50 for reliability, mechanics, etc. They had about a million things wrong with them, but for some people the looks overcame that.
If you own one of the classics, you should either be comfortable with doing your own wrenching, or have the money to pay for regular mechanical work at a level far above that of a normal production car.
No, that light is emitted from the backlight (assuming LCD) anyway. If you have a white background, it escapes the monitor and gets absorbed and turned into heat somewhere in the room. If you have a black background, it gets absorbed and turned into heat right at the monitor.
Every watt the monitor draws is turned into heat pretty quickly.
Wouldn't take but a couple of hours on a background task to rip to XviD, then whack the alternate track in, then if you have a newish settop DVD player you can just play the XviD on that, even from a thumb drive if you have something like a Philips 5960
I've got an upsampling DVD player with HDMI output into a 720p projector. I don't have interlacing when I play my regular DVD movies. The player does both progressive scan and widescreen.
Sure, except in the context of this sale (if real, and if generally available), it's $99 versus $400.
I have a 720p projector, and I'm very unlikely to get a 1080 one for at least 5 years. It'd be nice to get a player that did 720p. For $99, who the hell cares if I throw it away in 3 or 4 years?
I actually probably wouldn't even spend $400 versus $300 for 1080. It was a big step for me and a lot of money for me to get the 720p projector, and it really is going to be quite a while before I upgrade it. I'd rather spend that $100 on some movies.
Probably largely true, but the video decoding part is going to require a lot more horsepower. A DVD MPEG2 stream can be played by very lightweight parts these days, but last I heard the chips that play HD streams are powerful enough that they require cooling fans. According to the MythTV howtos I've read, playing HDs on PCs requires a hefty graphics card that costs probably $300+ and about a 3GHZ machine. By contrast, you can play regular DVDs on a 600 MHz machine with an 8-year-old graphics card that you pulled from a dumpster.
Printers. I don't think any of my last three inkjet printers has had a proper driver for it, one that actually lets me use the printer to anywhere near its full capability. My current printer, a Canon i960, I love the printer but it's severely crippled by the drivers available for it under Linux.
According to the NPR story on this last week, it was reported at $19M, but NASA says it was more like $15 million. It's still way more accurate than most science reporting, but it was still about 27% high.
If anyone has it, everyone should have it. More to the point, if the cops can take pictures of my house, then I should be able to take pictures of the cops, or anything else I can see from my own or public property. What scares me is the increasing trend towards governments photographing everything while individuals are arrested for snapping pics from a public street.
Living ethically is a lot easier when someone isn't deliberately setting you up. Not at all. I've always made every effort to not look at anything that I'm not supposed to see. If someone offers me a password, I'll refuse if there's any way for me to do the job without having known it, and I make every effort to not remember it afterwards (IE with ones I am supposed to know I'll think of a mnemonic; with ones I'm not, I have the user write them down, then I walk over and shred them as soon as I'm done).
Good thing too; for the last 7 years I've been root on a cluster that handles millions of tax returns annually. I can truthfully say that I've never looked at any of them beyond what I needed to in order to do my job, and I don't give a damn if George Bush's or celebrity-of-the-month's return is on there, I'm not interested in looking.
I also return wallets I find on the street complete with cash, I do nothing more than find the ID so I can locate the owner, or drop it at the police station if its owner lives far away.
It's not that hard, people. You know what's right, you simply have to choose to do it, whether anyone's looking or not.
Right, but read on up the thread, and you'll see that NOW he's commuting the sentence. Just before leaving office, the OP is guessing that he'll be pardoned.
I agree. I don't remember the last time I had to show ID. It's certainly been more than a year. Since I ride a bicycle to work, I don't even carry one most of the time.
Anonymity is NOT a shield from tyranny! Anonymity is a shield from responsibility and accountability! Actually, it's both. Like almost anything, it can be used for good or bad.
You'll want anonymity if you're letting the cops know about that crack house down the street, right? White people living in Georgia in the 50s who wanted to write against the oppression of blacks certainly wanted anonymity, because people who wrote things like that then and there GOT KILLED for it, and the law didn't care much.
I propose that we use Social Security Numbers to identify legitimate citizens from illegal aliens. The system is already in place, is already regulated. All we need to do is enforce existing laws.
You mean the laws that say that a SSN can't be used as a national ID card? And that nobody outside the SSA (and now the IRS) is supposed to be able to demand that you give it?
Thanks. I tried Knoppmyth and it worked (99%) out of the box. All I really had to do was to write a quick perl script to change channels using the IR blaster. The driver for the blaster was in place, I just had to call irsend and it worked.
I know it doesn't make any sense in the context of trying AAC files, but honestly I haven't been impressed by the sound quality out of iPods. What they measured here is not necessarily the quality of the tracks, but rather how good those tracks sound when played on an iPod.
It'd be interesting if they pushed the files back into WAV files on a good decoder, then played them back on a decent machine with a nice sound card into Sennheiser headphones or something. That would better judge the actual quality of the tracks, rather than just how well an iPod can render the tracks.
Of course, if someone only ever listens to music on an iPod, I guess that's a pointless exercise, they're never going to hear the music properly anyway so the cheaper track is just as good. Perhaps that's the result of this test (if any, given the small sample).
What the hell does "low bitrate" even mean for a "lossless" codec? If it's lossless then ISTM that by definition the bitrate is just whatever it needs to be. The output should be exactly the same as the input, the encoding perfect. It takes however many bits it takes. If you can cut the bitrate down and suffer any change to the output, then it's not a lossless codec.
Slashdot Mirror
Fast booting is just a matter of spending time tweaking things. Heck, I've seen BSD systems that boot in about 5 seconds. Linux boots a hell of a lot faster if you compile a custom kernel that excludes support for hardware you don't have, and you can set up config files to just tell the driver where/what stuff is instead of having it probe for it.
It's cheap enough, but it's not small enough. I have a laptop with a 15" screen, I paid over $2000 for it. I never use it because it's too damn big. It has actually sat in my closet for over a year at a time. I don't even take it with me on vacations anymore because it's just too big to bother with.
This laptop is sufficient for my needs, and I'm likely to actually carry it because it's small and light enough to be reasonably carried around most everywhere.
I was just complaining that I couldn't find a laptop that actually meets my travel needs. All I need is something to check email, do a little web browsing, and maybe view photos and do a little remote SSH to take care of problems at work. I have a laptop but hate to carry it because it's too big.
This is actually exactly what I've been looking for. I'm so in line for this.
Good for you. Yes, cashiers are usually taken aback when you do that. I once walked into a home-improvement store and picked up a small item, gone to the front to pay for it, then put it back, explaining that I'd accidentally put one in my pocket while looking for other stuff, and didn't realize I had it until a few days later. It was about a $2 item so I wasn't going to make a special trip for it, but I did pay for it eventually.
IMHO these people are certainly guilty of something, though IINAL so I don't know exactly what. They took advantage of a situation and took money they clearly realized was not theirs. I don't think this is any different than walking out of a store without paying if you get to the front and find the cashier is in the bathroom. I've said it before, these are not difficult decisions; you know what's right, you just need to choose to do it. "Stickin' it to the man" is simply rationalization of your own immorality.
What's sad here is that apparently a couple dozen people found out about this and it nobody had the honesty to report it.
I know 3 people who have them, and have talked to a few more. They all say 100 points for style, -50 for reliability, mechanics, etc. They had about a million things wrong with them, but for some people the looks overcame that.
If you own one of the classics, you should either be comfortable with doing your own wrenching, or have the money to pay for regular mechanical work at a level far above that of a normal production car.
No, that light is emitted from the backlight (assuming LCD) anyway. If you have a white background, it escapes the monitor and gets absorbed and turned into heat somewhere in the room. If you have a black background, it gets absorbed and turned into heat right at the monitor.
Every watt the monitor draws is turned into heat pretty quickly.
Wouldn't take but a couple of hours on a background task to rip to XviD, then whack the alternate track in, then if you have a newish settop DVD player you can just play the XviD on that, even from a thumb drive if you have something like a Philips 5960
Who in their right mind wouldn't pick up a PS3 for their HD video( BluRay ) player when for maybe $100 you get a 3rd Gen game console thrown in?
I've got no use whatsoever for a game console, and a PS3 is going to look like crap in my media equipment stack.
It was a joke. He didn't say that was a marginal cost, he was poking fun at the $20 by saying that the ENTIRE R&D cost was $50 plus pizza and beer.
I've got an upsampling DVD player with HDMI output into a 720p projector. I don't have interlacing when I play my regular DVD movies. The player does both progressive scan and widescreen.
Sure, except in the context of this sale (if real, and if generally available), it's $99 versus $400.
I have a 720p projector, and I'm very unlikely to get a 1080 one for at least 5 years. It'd be nice to get a player that did 720p. For $99, who the hell cares if I throw it away in 3 or 4 years?
I actually probably wouldn't even spend $400 versus $300 for 1080. It was a big step for me and a lot of money for me to get the 720p projector, and it really is going to be quite a while before I upgrade it. I'd rather spend that $100 on some movies.
Probably largely true, but the video decoding part is going to require a lot more horsepower. A DVD MPEG2 stream can be played by very lightweight parts these days, but last I heard the chips that play HD streams are powerful enough that they require cooling fans. According to the MythTV howtos I've read, playing HDs on PCs requires a hefty graphics card that costs probably $300+ and about a 3GHZ machine. By contrast, you can play regular DVDs on a 600 MHz machine with an 8-year-old graphics card that you pulled from a dumpster.
Printers. I don't think any of my last three inkjet printers has had a proper driver for it, one that actually lets me use the printer to anywhere near its full capability. My current printer, a Canon i960, I love the printer but it's severely crippled by the drivers available for it under Linux.
According to the NPR story on this last week, it was reported at $19M, but NASA says it was more like $15 million.
It's still way more accurate than most science reporting, but it was still about 27% high.
If anyone has it, everyone should have it. More to the point, if the cops can take pictures of my house, then I should be able to take pictures of the cops, or anything else I can see from my own or public property. What scares me is the increasing trend towards governments photographing everything while individuals are arrested for snapping pics from a public street.
Living ethically is a lot easier when someone isn't deliberately setting you up.
Not at all. I've always made every effort to not look at anything that I'm not supposed to see. If someone offers me a password, I'll refuse if there's any way for me to do the job without having known it, and I make every effort to not remember it afterwards (IE with ones I am supposed to know I'll think of a mnemonic; with ones I'm not, I have the user write them down, then I walk over and shred them as soon as I'm done).
Good thing too; for the last 7 years I've been root on a cluster that handles millions of tax returns annually. I can truthfully say that I've never looked at any of them beyond what I needed to in order to do my job, and I don't give a damn if George Bush's or celebrity-of-the-month's return is on there, I'm not interested in looking.
I also return wallets I find on the street complete with cash, I do nothing more than find the ID so I can locate the owner, or drop it at the police station if its owner lives far away.
It's not that hard, people. You know what's right, you simply have to choose to do it, whether anyone's looking or not.
Right, but read on up the thread, and you'll see that NOW he's commuting the sentence. Just before leaving office, the OP is guessing that he'll be pardoned.
Add a leg, so it's a quadrapod. Sure, one of the legs will be useless but it won't meet the letter of the law anymore. We can all play at this game.
I agree. I don't remember the last time I had to show ID. It's certainly been more than a year.
Since I ride a bicycle to work, I don't even carry one most of the time.
Anonymity is NOT a shield from tyranny! Anonymity is a shield from responsibility and accountability!
Actually, it's both. Like almost anything, it can be used for good or bad.
You'll want anonymity if you're letting the cops know about that crack house down the street, right? White people living in Georgia in the 50s who wanted to write against the oppression of blacks certainly wanted anonymity, because people who wrote things like that then and there GOT KILLED for it, and the law didn't care much.
I propose that we use Social Security Numbers to identify legitimate citizens from illegal aliens. The system is already in place, is already regulated. All we need to do is enforce existing laws.
You mean the laws that say that a SSN can't be used as a national ID card? And that nobody outside the SSA (and now the IRS) is supposed to be able to demand that you give it?
Thanks. I tried Knoppmyth and it worked (99%) out of the box. All I really had to do was to write a quick perl script to change channels using the IR blaster. The driver for the blaster was in place, I just had to call irsend and it worked.
I know it doesn't make any sense in the context of trying AAC files, but honestly I haven't been impressed by the sound quality out of iPods. What they measured here is not necessarily the quality of the tracks, but rather how good those tracks sound when played on an iPod.
It'd be interesting if they pushed the files back into WAV files on a good decoder, then played them back on a decent machine with a nice sound card into Sennheiser headphones or something. That would better judge the actual quality of the tracks, rather than just how well an iPod can render the tracks.
Of course, if someone only ever listens to music on an iPod, I guess that's a pointless exercise, they're never going to hear the music properly anyway so the cheaper track is just as good. Perhaps that's the result of this test (if any, given the small sample).
What the hell does "low bitrate" even mean for a "lossless" codec? If it's lossless then ISTM that by definition the bitrate is just whatever it needs to be. The output should be exactly the same as the input, the encoding perfect. It takes however many bits it takes. If you can cut the bitrate down and suffer any change to the output, then it's not a lossless codec.