Oh, and 800 MHz is under the "Vista Capable PC Logo" column, which also says 512 MB RAM and neglects to list anything under Graphics Memory and HDD space. A 56K modem is capable of getting me on the Internet, too, but I wouldn't want to try to actually do anything with it.
The graphics card has to be DX9. So at least a 64 MB GeForce 6200 that can be purchased for ~$30-40. Or one of those new Intel chipsets. Of course, you probably want to buy a PC that fits the right column in that link. But a 1 GHz processor still ain't an "insane machine."
You can buy a Vista-capable PC from Dell right now for ~$500. Or build it, whatever. My dad just got one for $600 last week. (I offered to build it, but he wanted to finance it, and have the whole thing right now)
Firefox hasn't been that bad since I started using Opera for PhotoBucket and ImageShack and practically stopped using Myspace. Of course, if I still used Firefox for those sites/usage patterns the memory would grow out-of-control. But it's not bugging me at the moment.
One thing that does bug me is while using SageTV to record TV and Nero to burn it to DVDs, if I have TV.com on Firefox in the background, often Firefox gets up to 100% usage and threatens to corrupt my rips or burns. Firefox. The browser. The program that should be the least CPU intensive, just sitting there displaying Flash ads and some text, slows my computer to a crawl and almost halts the I/O! Craziness.
Another site to use Opera for until Mozilla finally fix the memory problems I guess.
GP brought up a good point. If AOL behaved the way they do now, but were free, they'd be considered the worst kind of spammer--the one who doesn't unsubscribe and instead sends you more offers.
I have to admit, I only have experience bidding a few times for an nVidia graphics card. That said, my take on how sniping is successful is that the number of bids is listed right there for everyone to see. In a list of many different brands of the same card, it's tough to tell which one you want. But it becomes easier to pick one when you see what other people want. The ones with 2 or 3 bids look more valuable than the ones with zero bids.
In my case, I bid on 4 different cards that had zero bids after 1 of 3 days. Within hours of my bids, each item would get a second bid, beating out what I wanted to pay. Only one of my bids, on the crappiest model, survived until the last day when it was also outbid.
It was especially bad that I bid on a rare-in-America Gainward Gold Seal nVidia, without a box, and with a picture that didn't even look like a graphics card. Nobody would have known what it even was, and definitely wouldn't have known that it was a top end card. After I bid, the bidding suddenly went crazy. Had I waited, it might have gone unnoticed, and at least received fewer bidders, if not lower bids. Instead the card went for several hundred dollars and over 10 bids.
Why? Well, if you don't ever add tags that are meaningful to you than you don't really gain anything. You already tag things when you put them in folders. Whether the file manager provides the GUI or the app, doesn't matter too much for those tags. As long as it's intuitive.
Also known as Democracy. That's offtopic, but this isn't: to satisfy the greatest number of people with the latest hits they want to hear at various times during the day, they inevitably end up playing the same stuff over and over again.
Myspace started with a group of 20-somethings and 30-somethings from the California area(1). It was all adults when I joined around 3M. They didn't even allow kids on.
You'll probably acheive about the same results initially as you do now without a database filesystem. mp3's that only have an Artist and Track will only show up under the tags for Artist and Track. If you currently put each file in a folder for an Album, then theoretically, a database filesystem shouldn't require any more work than that. Typing once, and moving stuff around or selecting all the files to apply it to, for example. I think it's highly unlikely that you'll need to type the album repeatedly for each track.
Photos would be similar. If you currently organize them into Friends, Hotties, pr0n, Feet, that's probably about all you'll do with a database system. Of course now you'll also have the option to also put a file into pr0n *and* Feet.
"I should be able to ask my operating system, "Show me all my picture files", and it simply can list ALL the image files on my computer,"
That would not be very useful to me as I have millions of images probably. I'd have to use tags or some crap. The folders keep them organized believe it or not. I suppose you could say that folders are just another kind of tag but then I'd have to remember what the hell I tagged them with. Following the tree of folders is easier.
It's more intuitive than it sounds. Folders are a one-tag system. What if you want more than one tag? Like say a vacation photo. You could put it in Vacations\Hawaii\, but what about the people that are in it? What about if you love all your pictures of sunsets?
With a database filesystem, you should be able to tag it: "Vacations, Hawaii, [wife's name], [daughter's name], sunset". Then you could be provided a UI where you can click any one of those tags and it would show you all matches, or select a few at a time to narrow it down further. Add filetypes, dates, authors, etc. and you can do even more with it.
Now I do see the benefits of the relational file system but let me ask you this... what would the files look like on a computer... on an OS? Would there be folders like now? Would every file just be dumped in C:\ ???
Essentially, yes. The files would just be in one big alphabetical list ("media"), or perhaps broken up by content type (video, audio, pictures).
Maybe you would not be able to see the files at all and would have to do a search everytime? How would I find something that I haven't thought of in a very long time? It might be gone forever. I'm really just curious.
There could be some handy options for "Today's media" (created today), "This week", etc. To find a file you hadn't looked at in a while, just click or search for "media last accessed in 2004", or whatever a more friendly name might be for that. Or "untagged photos", so you could just leave your photos you just transferred from your camera in a pile until you felt like organizing them. Or better yet, have the application apply a tag to each set of photos (=directory), which you could later organize further.
At present Reiser4 lacks a few standard file system features, such as an online repacker (similar to the defragmentation utilities provided with other file systems) or the capability of resizing existing file systems. The creators of Reiser4 say they will implement these later; sooner if someone pays them to do so.
Ext2 and Ext3 also get fragmented. That nobody has created a good defragmenter for a filesystem is not a good indicator that the filesystem doesn't require defragmentation.
Resource forks sound like NTFS streams
on
WinFS Gets the Axe
·
· Score: 1
And how many other OS'es have managed to do it?
on
WinFS Gets the Axe
·
· Score: 1
Linux? It has a wide variety of filesystems, but they all work roughly the same way. No huge paradigm shift required. Still POSIX-compliant. Different journaling, better performance for servers, better recovery options. Nothing too drastic.
Mac? They added journaling to catch up to Windows and *nix. But a radically new filesystem? Nope.
It's a huge problem to shift to a completely new type of filesystem without breaking compatibility. I'm sure it's a really tough project to get a handle on, and would be very easy to underestimate. BTW, you have, for almost a year now, been able to download a beta of it. Just don't expect it to integrate with anything else.
They used a poor (specialized) tool for the job, judging by the redacting application linked in this comment, which is described as:
Appligent's redaction products completely remove content from the data stream, unlike other solutions that merely hide the information under black bars. Since the content is no longer in the document, snooping or hacking into the file cannot reveal the redacted information.
So the problem is likely that they used a tool that was designed for the task of redacting, but the tool doesn't work as it should.
Okay, you go ahead and install Spyglass then and see how you enjoy browsing the web. Should be fun waiting for the entire page to load before it displays anything at all. You do know that XmlHttpRequest (AJAX) is a MS invention, right?
That doesn't really make sense to me though. MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 would look best at as close to 100% uncompressed as possible, whatever their respective limits may be. At that level, either they would be the same bitrate or MPEG-4 would require less bitrate.
At every quality level below 100% uncompressed, MPEG-4 would require less bitrate than MPEG-2, while simultaneously using a more modern codec that doesn't get blocky and shows finer detail. In other words, MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2 at every bitrate (apples-to-apples). The only reason you'd want to use MPEG-2 is if that's all your hardware or infrastructure supports.
"The ideal outcome for us is when this technology becomes instrumental in saving lives."
What Commander Sid Heal means by "ideal outcome" is the outcome that will give them justification for a program that has other motives.
The non-ideal outcome is that those stories of life-saving aren't used as propoganda for the system throughout the media, and instead the image of the program becomes one of invasion of privacy and your rights as an American citizen.
Five gets you ten that the movie comes up with some wild-ass conspiracy theory involving oil company influence at GM, though. After all, when an activist-favored technology fails utterly in the marketplace, it has to be the fault of Big Evil Corporations.
That would have been more convincing if another poster hadn't already pointed out that they were never sold:
the cars couldn't be sold for the amount of money it took to build them
Change that to "the cars could not be bought for any amount of money". That's right: GM never sold a single EV1, they were all leased with no option to renew the lease or buy the damn car! On top of that, GM made the customers jump through hoops to even get an EV1.
Not exactly failing in the marketplace if they never actually entered the marketplace.
I watch standard definition (DVD res.) H.264 on my old 2.0 GHz with a nVidia Ti4600 just fine. Not sure about the encode time, as I've only encoded a couple of TV shows with it so far. But I think the hardware is definitely adequate.
I also don't think the major benefit of H.264 is filesize. It uses a better compression algorithm that doesn't make it look blocky. The mp4 container also handles VBR mp3, aac, and various other audio codecs without resorting to hacks like packed bitstream in AVI.
I don't know. I'm still kind of a n00b at it, but mp4 definitely seems worth doing. It probably is because of lack of standalones that can play it or something.
Why haven't the warez scene rippers switched to H.264? It's not like it's hard to run an AVS through x264 and mp4box to produce a much better looking rip.
Slashdot Mirror
The graphics card has to be DX9. So at least a 64 MB GeForce 6200 that can be purchased for ~$30-40. Or one of those new Intel chipsets. Of course, you probably want to buy a PC that fits the right column in that link. But a 1 GHz processor still ain't an "insane machine."
You can buy a Vista-capable PC from Dell right now for ~$500. Or build it, whatever. My dad just got one for $600 last week. (I offered to build it, but he wanted to finance it, and have the whole thing right now)
Firefox hasn't been that bad since I started using Opera for PhotoBucket and ImageShack and practically stopped using Myspace. Of course, if I still used Firefox for those sites/usage patterns the memory would grow out-of-control. But it's not bugging me at the moment.
One thing that does bug me is while using SageTV to record TV and Nero to burn it to DVDs, if I have TV.com on Firefox in the background, often Firefox gets up to 100% usage and threatens to corrupt my rips or burns. Firefox. The browser. The program that should be the least CPU intensive, just sitting there displaying Flash ads and some text, slows my computer to a crawl and almost halts the I/O! Craziness.
Another site to use Opera for until Mozilla finally fix the memory problems I guess.
Yeah, 800 MHz. That's one insane machine!
GP brought up a good point. If AOL behaved the way they do now, but were free, they'd be considered the worst kind of spammer--the one who doesn't unsubscribe and instead sends you more offers.
I have to admit, I only have experience bidding a few times for an nVidia graphics card. That said, my take on how sniping is successful is that the number of bids is listed right there for everyone to see. In a list of many different brands of the same card, it's tough to tell which one you want. But it becomes easier to pick one when you see what other people want. The ones with 2 or 3 bids look more valuable than the ones with zero bids.
In my case, I bid on 4 different cards that had zero bids after 1 of 3 days. Within hours of my bids, each item would get a second bid, beating out what I wanted to pay. Only one of my bids, on the crappiest model, survived until the last day when it was also outbid.
It was especially bad that I bid on a rare-in-America Gainward Gold Seal nVidia, without a box, and with a picture that didn't even look like a graphics card. Nobody would have known what it even was, and definitely wouldn't have known that it was a top end card. After I bid, the bidding suddenly went crazy. Had I waited, it might have gone unnoticed, and at least received fewer bidders, if not lower bids. Instead the card went for several hundred dollars and over 10 bids.
Why? Well, if you don't ever add tags that are meaningful to you than you don't really gain anything. You already tag things when you put them in folders. Whether the file manager provides the GUI or the app, doesn't matter too much for those tags. As long as it's intuitive.
Also known as Democracy. That's offtopic, but this isn't: to satisfy the greatest number of people with the latest hits they want to hear at various times during the day, they inevitably end up playing the same stuff over and over again.
Myspace started with a group of 20-somethings and 30-somethings from the California area(1). It was all adults when I joined around 3M. They didn't even allow kids on.
s er.viewprofile&friendid=2
(1) Change the friendID to see the first members:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=u
You'll probably acheive about the same results initially as you do now without a database filesystem. mp3's that only have an Artist and Track will only show up under the tags for Artist and Track. If you currently put each file in a folder for an Album, then theoretically, a database filesystem shouldn't require any more work than that. Typing once, and moving stuff around or selecting all the files to apply it to, for example. I think it's highly unlikely that you'll need to type the album repeatedly for each track.
Photos would be similar. If you currently organize them into Friends, Hotties, pr0n, Feet, that's probably about all you'll do with a database system. Of course now you'll also have the option to also put a file into pr0n *and* Feet.
It's more intuitive than it sounds. Folders are a one-tag system. What if you want more than one tag? Like say a vacation photo. You could put it in Vacations\Hawaii\, but what about the people that are in it? What about if you love all your pictures of sunsets?
With a database filesystem, you should be able to tag it: "Vacations, Hawaii, [wife's name], [daughter's name], sunset". Then you could be provided a UI where you can click any one of those tags and it would show you all matches, or select a few at a time to narrow it down further. Add filetypes, dates, authors, etc. and you can do even more with it.
Essentially, yes. The files would just be in one big alphabetical list ("media"), or perhaps broken up by content type (video, audio, pictures).
There could be some handy options for "Today's media" (created today), "This week", etc. To find a file you hadn't looked at in a while, just click or search for "media last accessed in 2004", or whatever a more friendly name might be for that. Or "untagged photos", so you could just leave your photos you just transferred from your camera in a pile until you felt like organizing them. Or better yet, have the application apply a tag to each set of photos (=directory), which you could later organize further.Quartz 2D Extreme = shipped turned off over a year ago.
WinFS = shipped in Beta almost a year ago.
What were you guys arguing about again?
How to Use NTFS Alternate Data Streams
Linux? It has a wide variety of filesystems, but they all work roughly the same way. No huge paradigm shift required. Still POSIX-compliant. Different journaling, better performance for servers, better recovery options. Nothing too drastic.
Mac? They added journaling to catch up to Windows and *nix. But a radically new filesystem? Nope.
It's a huge problem to shift to a completely new type of filesystem without breaking compatibility. I'm sure it's a really tough project to get a handle on, and would be very easy to underestimate. BTW, you have, for almost a year now, been able to download a beta of it. Just don't expect it to integrate with anything else.
They used a poor (specialized) tool for the job, judging by the redacting application linked in this comment, which is described as:
So the problem is likely that they used a tool that was designed for the task of redacting, but the tool doesn't work as it should.
It's really 4 dimensions. Movement.
Hmm...that came out kind of confusing. 2 separate points:
1. Browsers of that era didn't display the page until it was done loading.
2. AJAX was invented by MS, while they were developing IE.
Okay, you go ahead and install Spyglass then and see how you enjoy browsing the web. Should be fun waiting for the entire page to load before it displays anything at all. You do know that XmlHttpRequest (AJAX) is a MS invention, right?
That doesn't really make sense to me though. MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 would look best at as close to 100% uncompressed as possible, whatever their respective limits may be. At that level, either they would be the same bitrate or MPEG-4 would require less bitrate.
At every quality level below 100% uncompressed, MPEG-4 would require less bitrate than MPEG-2, while simultaneously using a more modern codec that doesn't get blocky and shows finer detail. In other words, MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2 at every bitrate (apples-to-apples). The only reason you'd want to use MPEG-2 is if that's all your hardware or infrastructure supports.
And according to APA style guidelines, you don't add an S after the apostrophe.
So we're back where we started: both forms are acceptable.
What Commander Sid Heal means by "ideal outcome" is the outcome that will give them justification for a program that has other motives.
The non-ideal outcome is that those stories of life-saving aren't used as propoganda for the system throughout the media, and instead the image of the program becomes one of invasion of privacy and your rights as an American citizen.
That would have been more convincing if another poster hadn't already pointed out that they were never sold:
Not exactly failing in the marketplace if they never actually entered the marketplace.
I watch standard definition (DVD res.) H.264 on my old 2.0 GHz with a nVidia Ti4600 just fine. Not sure about the encode time, as I've only encoded a couple of TV shows with it so far. But I think the hardware is definitely adequate.
I also don't think the major benefit of H.264 is filesize. It uses a better compression algorithm that doesn't make it look blocky. The mp4 container also handles VBR mp3, aac, and various other audio codecs without resorting to hacks like packed bitstream in AVI.
I don't know. I'm still kind of a n00b at it, but mp4 definitely seems worth doing. It probably is because of lack of standalones that can play it or something.
Why haven't the warez scene rippers switched to H.264? It's not like it's hard to run an AVS through x264 and mp4box to produce a much better looking rip.
Nah, EditCSS is only per-page and temporary. Nothing on his blog really needs to be bold.