Slashback: Zoning, Linking, Fooling 170
Welcome to the Fantasy Hardware League Regarding our post on the allegedly upcoming Radeon 8500 MAXX, reader eyelove yu writes: "This pic is fake, as many people have suspected. HardOCP.com (on front page) quoted Rubeena Hussein of ATi as saying,'"We have no current intentions of making this or similar boards.'"
Soon we will be able to assemble an entire system created in Photoshop. Yay.
Or you could roll down the windows ... vt@home writes: "As a followup to the earlier story, here is a system that not only allows to monitor the temperature throughout the house and draw nice charts, but also does already have computer controlled vents and even allows to control the A/C unit. Basically, this is a do-it-yourself zoning system, for under $500. Of course, the source is GPLd ;)"
Next week, the sidewalks will practically be free for public use. juanfe writes: "It's not like they really had any power to enforce their previous one, but NPR modified their Terms of Use on June 27. Now, linkers do not have to submit a form asking for permission, but NPR "reserve the right to withdraw permission for any link". More commentary from others.
Nothing like hundreds of angry bloggers threatening to withhold membership contributions to their local station."
Raising a stink to the power of 10. Snarfangel writes "After seeing Yet Another Slashdot Article extolling the virtues of meretricious metrification ("Isn't it Time for Metric Time?"), I decided to fight back the only way I know how -- by subjecting an innocent website to the Slashdot effect: This site goes into great detail about the importance of being Ernst (or at least Max Karl Ernst Ludwig) Planck, especially his system of units that only depend the fundamental constants of the universe -- the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the Planck constant, and the charge of the electron. With appropriate scaling, you get a unified measurement system that is not only more logical than Le Systeme International d'Unites, but is also much better for calculating physics problems in your head.
After all, if we are going to go to all the effort to change our measurement system, why not use that same effort and get the system *right* the first time?"
On a different note, Colin LeMahieu writes "I noticed your post on metric time. I stumbled across this while looking for various computer timing related articles and found it pretty interesting. This might not be as popular as metric time, but it seems to make more sense. The whole system is based on time as a fraction of a day; it even has the scientific measurment on how to re-produce the time, as with any scientific measurement."
Of course (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course (Score:1)
I like the look of this - especially the conversion between hex seconds, minutes etc being just a matter of shifting the decimal point. Does this mean we have Smarch as a month? (:
Re:Of course (Score:2)
Havent I told you millions of times not to exagerate?
It was photoshop.....or was it? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:It was photoshop.....or was it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It was photoshop.....or was it? (Score:2)
Re:It was photoshop.....or was it? (Score:3, Informative)
Look at the pic of the Radeon "MAXX" (Score:4, Interesting)
I figured out how they made the Dual GPU image... (Score:1)
Check out this one:
http://www.hothardware.com/reviews/images/r8500
and this one:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q4/011016
And here is the final image:
http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/10262426625G
What they basically did was they took the ass end of the 8500 card and stuck it on the end of the 7500 board. It's interesting that they did this because they had to invent part of the circuit board themselves in order to place the processors. (I imagine the [H] on the final image was meant to cover up an obvious error.)
They did a relatively credible job, but they did make one crappy mistake. When ATI took the 'product photos', they did them at slightly different angles. The 'artist' who faked the dual GPU image did a respectable job of masking the perspective problem. But they would have done much better to cast a few lines to the point of convergence, then use the Photoshop 'distort' feature to line them up a little more accurately. That's why the processor to the right looks like it's not pushed in all the way.
I'm impressed with the amount of work they had to do in order to cook up this image. It was considerably tougher than 'copy/paste'.
Re:I figured out how they made the Dual GPU image. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I figured out how they made the Dual GPU image. (Score:1)
Doh!! I shoulda noticed that! hehe. *wasn't paying attention.
If you're curious how I found those images: All I did was go to Google's image search and typed in 'ATI Radeon 8500'. Before long, I ran across product pics.
That was a fun little project, took about 10 minutes.
Re:I figured out how they made the Dual GPU image. (Score:1)
A little masochistic, dontcha think?
(Interesting read, though.
Google Image Search is your friend... (Score:1, Interesting)
All I did was type in 'ATI Radeon 8500' at Google's image search and flipped through the pages a bit. When I saw something that looked like a product shot, I grabbed it. The main clue that I had the right card was the cable running from the GPU fan to the card. It only took me about 10 minutes to do.
Off Topic? HTH is that Off Topic? (Score:2)
So what? If he found it hard to use, he's to get modded down for it? Yah, clever way to respond. Too bad whoever modded 'em down didn't have the balls to tell him why. Boy you really taught him a lesson: "Linux zealots are easy to tweak."
All this over an opinion.
It's still not out of the realm of possibility (Score:1, Troll)
All in all that was a pretty good photoshopping, though.
What made me wonder was the part about how they hadn't figured out the way in which the VIVO daughterboard would connect. If it's already in silicon, it's a little too late now
Re:"Timing" of screws (Score:5, Informative)
That said, with todays CNC milling machines that have what is called "Rigid tapping", or if the threads are "thread milled", it happens all the time, the tap goes in the same way each time, so if the screws are all made the same, all the screw heads come out the same. Looks strange, but it does happen
Re:"Timing" of screws (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Look at the pic of the Radeon "MAXX" (Score:2)
Of course, I tend to believe ATI when they say it's all a hoax.
fundamental constants (Score:5, Insightful)
What if fundamental constants of the universe turn out not to be constant [space.com]?
My car gets 50 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.
Re:fundamental constants (Score:5, Funny)
That would be roughly 0.0025 miles/gallon. What do you drive, a Sherman tank?
Re:fundamental constants (Score:1)
Re:fundamental constants (Score:2)
Re:fundamental constants (Score:2)
t.
Re:fundamental constants (Score:1)
Re:fundamental constants (Score:1)
Re:fundamental constants (Score:1)
Re:fundamental constants (Score:2)
That's nothin! Mine gets 285 leagues to the oxhaft! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, sonny!
I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:3, Interesting)
The meter, for instance, was originally defined as one ten-millionth of the distance between the north pole and the south pole. Although now the Earth has been measured more accurately so it's off by a bit, and it's now defined by the length light travels in a vacuum in a very short time.
But really, why are we basing measurements on all these arbitrary values anyway? Like the Imperial system originated from the dimensions of some king's thumb or similar, pretty much every measurement ever devised and in common everyday use is derived from non-universal values, which have no practical upshot -- if we want to measure the Earth, we're going to include some decimal places anyway.
Personally I think this, if adopted, would make scientific calculations a bit easier. It's annoying to have to remember several different conversion constants for gravity, charge, gas constant (8.314 or similar?), and so on. And perhaps without all the continual conversions, relationships between different physical principles might become more readily apparent...?
But I guess the downside is that some calculations are always going to have funny conversion constants, especially in the non-Physics world (Avogadro's number in chemisty perhaps for instance?). So even though the metric system isn't perfect, it's the standard so we might as well use it (although this could be the web developer in me speaking). It would be too much change for too little benefit to rescale the entire number system -- convincing the general populace would be just about impossible, especially considering how much trouble some countries are still having adjusting to the metric system
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:3, Insightful)
The standards are chosen so that they're easy to reproduce accurately. If you're doing ultra-high-precision work, using the Planck system wouldn't even be an option, because G, in particular, is known with very poor accuracy. BTW, c now has a defined value in the metric system, but they waited to do it until technology made it a better standard than the previous one. There's also talk of defining the kilogram in terms of a certain number of atoms of a certain isotope, but right now atom-counting is a less accurate standard than the famous platinum-iridium cylinders in Paris.
Many physicists do use natural units (systems of units where certain constants equal 1) very often for certain types of calculations. If you're doing relativistic stuff, it's much easier to work with a system where c=1. If you're one of the hardy souls working on quantum gravity, then you do indeed use the Planck system, simply because it makes all the equations simpler. But there isn't any advantage to the Planck system unless you're doing research in quantum gravity.
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:3, Interesting)
light speed = 1,000,000,000 ft/s
elect const = 0.000 000 001 'F' / ft
magnt const = 0.000 000 001 'H' / ft
gravitation = 0.000 000 001 lb s^2 / ft^3
Such a system is easy to set up, and produces practical sized units. The nifty thing about this is that one could convert pounds and coulombs with a foot ruler, since the size of the foot, pound, and charge unit directly is in proportion to time. So a mars-ruler laid up against an earth-ruler converts pounds etc. The replacement for Volts, Ohms Watts, and Amperes are not changed from planet to planet. The only trouble is that the thing's hard to set up for practical use.
On the other hand, I did try to look for a 'better' system. I did manage to get eight constants working in a google-system. In essence, the process of dimensional analysis is to let things like L, M, T and I have numeric values, being powers of 10^100. The set I used after much study is L=1E1100, M=1E73300, T=1E100, Q=1E32200. So a kilowatt is 1E75203. One can then work with a wide range of units, eg tonne = E73303 becomes coherent.
You can do the same thing with the fine structure constant, and an assortment of natural constants as well. Instead of powers of 10, you use powers of 137.0359895, or its square root. The relevant units are:
L 1K1100 = 137.036 bohr radii
M 1K73300 = 137.036^2 electron mass
T 1K100 so that c = 1K137.036^3
Q 1K32200 = 137.036 electron charge
t 1 th so that m_e c^2 / k = 137^4
These units refers to one boron-sized molecule at atmospheric pressue, ~ 10 K. Most of the numbers come out as they should: avagadro's number in this system is 10.3 (ie 137.036/1868).
It still does won't be used in science because of the way scientists works. Something like "cgs units" or "atomic units" is of their name.
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:2)
some calculations are always going to have funny conversion constants, especially in the non-Physics world (Avogadro's number in chemisty perhaps for instance?).
Er... Avogadro's number is just defined in terms of grams (12g of carbon=1 mole, 1 mole=[Avogadro's number] atoms). If we switched units we would automatically get a new value, possibly a nice clean one. Or we could just change 1 mol=10^21 atoms.
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:2)
It would be easier said than done trying to find another element that had an integer for the atomic mass of it's most common isotope as well as containing 6.022x10^23 atoms, hence the definition of the mole would change.
Not that there ever WILL be a change to this system of measurement, but if in some alternate dimension there was, I'm betting that they'd just use the Planck-mass that is the equivalent of 12g of carbon.
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:2)
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:2)
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:1)
Actually, 1 cc of water weighs about 1/100 of a newton, and one calorie will raise the cc of water by 1 degree celcius (about 4.2 joules).
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:2)
newtons are a measure of force - m.kg.s^-2. or are you getting technical about weight vs mass? but I stand corrected about the 4.2 joules bit. that'll teach me to post on the basis of 15 year old memories of high school physics. : )
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:2)
Not me. I reckon it's 1.00000 earthins (diameter), or 1.00000 earthons (circumference).
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:1)
Yeah, but think of the potential for the geek & nerd subculture to further distance themselves from the real world by using units that no-one else has even heard of!
I've previously played with fractions of the speed of light, as a way to liven up my bike riding (which I do mainly as a marginally non-boring form of exercise). This makes 12mph sound a lot more exciting: it works out to 17.9 nano-c, i.e. 17.9 billionths of the speed of light. Most electronic bike speedometers let you calibrate them to any units you like, so for a while I had my speedometer set to show my speed in these units. If you do this, it helps to already be familiar with kilometers, since 1 nano-c is fairly close to 1 kph (actually about 1.079 kph).
I gave this up when I realized that it was going to take me forever to cover the four light years to Alpha Centauri...
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:2)
It's not arbitrary at all. (Score:2)
But really, why are we basing measurements on all these arbitrary values anyway?"
A metre is how far light moves in 1/299,792,458th of a second. This is because light travels at the speed of 299,792,458 metres a second. See?
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:2)
Yep. Any distance less than 1,860,000 miles (3*10^9 meters) is one meter.
-
Re:I always wondered about units of measurement... (Score:2, Informative)
history of the meter [nist.gov]
Metric History (Score:3, Informative)
ANGLE
m circle -> 400 degrees -> 100 min -> 100 s
g circle -> 360 degrees -> 60 min -> 60 s
LENGTH.
The nautical and itenery length are the same, based on a minute arc on some circle of the earth.
m minute = kilometre = 1000 metres
g minute = mile = 1000 fathoms -> 6 feet -> 12 in & c An ell of 20 inches makes 1 mph = 1 ell/s
The km is too short, this from selecting the smallest value and underestimating it. The mile of 6080 ft Imperial, is closer to the mean.
AREA
For the sale of land, a unit of area is named. Normally square measure is used.
m are = 100 sq metres. 1 sq km = 10,000 are
g acre = 1000 sq fathoms. 1 sq mile = 1,000 acres.
The unit suggested here is a comma-unit: ie 12,345 sq fathoms = 12.345 acres.
VOLUME
Cubic measure is used to express volume measured by linear extent.
m stere = 1 cu m
g acre-foot = 1000 tuns = 36000 cu ft
tun = 36 cu ft
CAPACITY
For volume measured by bulk comparison (eg pouring), a more accurate system is used.
m litre = 0.001 cu m
g tun = 240 gallons, etc
WEIGHT (Mass)
For this, the basic weight is intended to be a capacity of water, under some conditions. In practice, a prototype is manufactured to fall in the range.
m 1 litre = 1 kg [This had a name "grave"]
g 1 tun = 2400 lb of 16 oz etc... = 0.972 lb
FINE WEIGHTS
This is a combination of the apothecaries, troy and other small measures. The pound is divided into 15 troy oz, and then according to the troy and apothecaries ounces respectively.
Standards were originally defined in terms of the jewellers weights, as jewellers often crafted the system. A grain is 1/480 of the matching ounce. The avoirdepoise oz is 437.5 troy grains, but 480 grains avoirdepoise.
The weights ran in France in the first stage of conversion is the 'system usualle', feet and pounds defined on round metric. The fine-weight usage was converted to metric. By the time that they came to drop the transitional system, the idea of dual weights had largely disappeared, and the fineweight was extended up to myriagrams, quintals, and tonnes.
MONEY
The value of a weight of silver or gold. Bullion-money has since gone out of fashion, but the franc was originally 0.1 grams of silver. cf pound, ounce, talent, mina, shekel, dram [weights that became money] vs mark, dram [money that became weight]
Converting money is the first step of introducing decimal, etc. In australia, currency decimalisation (1966) preceded metrification (1975).
Metric added some ambitious reforms that never took root, and were mercifully tapped on the head.
TIME
Division of the day, decimally. Unfortunately, the time units were already constant in Europe.
CALANDER
Grouping of days into weeks and years. This was a very localised affair. Attack on the calendar was seen, and is seen as, an attack on the core principles of society. Making a system dependant on the calender is now recognised as a folly.
Pentium V is coming out! (Score:1)
Just more proof that Slashdot doesn't really check their sources.
Re:Pentium Pentium is coming out! (Score:1)
8086/8088/80186 (they were just sorting out names here)
80286
80386
486
then not 586 but Pentium
Pentium Pro (ignore this one)
Pentium 2
Pentium 3
Pentium 4
Based on the limited sample size, Intel appears to have an aversion to the number 5, my guess is the new processor will be called the 'pentium pentium', with the subsequent processor called the 'pentium pentium 2', all the way up until the 5th incantation of the 'pentium pentium' where the processor will be named the 'pentium pentium pentium', and so on (and yes, i do think they will still be making x86 based processors then)
Re:Pentium Pentium is coming out! (Score:1)
I'm not sure how they came up with the name 8086, probably from the 4004 to the 8080 to 8086, but the 8086 was named. It was a 16 bit bus. The 8088 was actually newer but had an 8 bit bus so it was named 8086. The 80186, it a 16bit bus and the next generation of the 16 bit bus. The Pentium Pro was is commonly refered to as the as 686 (probably because Intel developed it under that name). The Pentium Pro, P2, and P3 all used the same basic core. The P4 is a new core. A P5 IMHO should be dubed "Decium", as it is the 10th chip in the line x86 line.
Kirby
Re:Pentium Pentium is coming out! (Score:2)
Re:Pentium Pentium is coming out! (Score:1)
but really, the 8088 was just an 8086 with an external 8 bit data path (like the 386SX to the 386DX), and the 80186 was just an 8086 with some extra on-chip io.
It all depends on where you want to draw the line, that's where I chose to draw it.
Intel can't call the 886 processor "P5" (Score:2)
I saw a picture of [a Pentium V processor] on the web
For one thing, it's "Pentium 4" not "Pentium IV".
For another, Pentium 5 would be abbreviated as "P5", which is one of the generic terms used to refer to 586-generation processors [erols.com] such as the original Pentium, AMD's K5, and whatever Cyrix had out at the time.
Athlon and Pentium 4 are 786 processors [erols.com]. Pentium 5 and the Hammer series will probably be considered 886's unless Intel tries to squeeze another chip out of its Pentium 4 core (the PIII was just a PII with SSE and a couple slight optimizations to the P6 core).
And how about luminance system based on Polaris? (Score:2, Funny)
Useful Slashdot Constants (Score:4, Funny)
Number of Trolls: infinity
Number of Spelling Mistakes/Article: 2
Number of First Posts: 1
Number of Wasted Work Hours per Day: 8
Number of Linux Zealots: 2418
Number of Mac OS X Lovers: 10
Number of Microsoft Believers: 1
Number of Bible Commandments Worth Following: 3
Being able to pay with your Microsoft Passport: priceless
Re:Useful Slashdot Constants (Score:1)
Hey thanks for remembering me!
Re:Useful Slashdot Constants (Score:1)
In your opinion exactly which 3 would those be?
Fake graphics and dual GPU cards (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a fake post here in 2000 where somebody took an Adaptec 2940 card and tweaked it a bit, then claimed it was a Russian-surplus vector-based supercomputer-on-PCI card. Ignoring the fact that the fake graphic was obvious (you could still see the Adaptec logo and QC stickers on the card), I could not believe people would fall for a "cray on a chip" from Russian surplus. While Russia is a fine country with a great history, they are not known for their high-tech electronics. This is the same country that was still uses tube computers and radios in the mid-1990s, and used to buy new pinball machines just so they could pull the 68000 CPUs. If the Russians had any infrastructure to develop such a bleeding-edge device, the certainly would not be selling it. I posted my feelings then and got flamed for it.
But I could fall for the ATI card. ATI has a history of Dual-GPU cards. I strongly disagree with the poster who said "dual is not as good"; depending on how it is done, it can be much better. Don't use Windows NT as your baseline for multiprocessor applications. Design an application (in this case, a driver) that expects to see certain CPUs in certain places and hardware that automagically divides the load. There are good ways to do this if you ALWAYS know what sort of hardware resources you will have. Systems that don't (standard Windoze or Linux applications) will suffer greatly as they try to adapt on-the-fly.
Re:Fake graphics and dual GPU cards (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you have a link/biblio-reference to the info about the Russians buying the pinball machines?
One of my favorite Russian-CS-is-screwed is the story about the metric chips... This Byte article [byte.com] alludes to the original story... In short, the Russians stole western-technology and produced knock-off copies using "the metric inch" -- except when their poor-quality copied failed, they couldn't use real (stolen?) chips to repair their machines.
Re:Fake graphics and dual GPU cards (Score:2)
Tubes are good (kinda) (Score:2)
At least this is what I have heard from a Russian physicist.
Re:Tubes are good (kinda) (Score:2)
Also, the sophistication of a vacuum-tube computer is limited by the size, heat, power consumption and failure rate of the components.
You can't do a supercomputer in tubes. Not with present tube technology.
don't you mean decimal time? (Score:1)
surely the correct term is 'decimal' and not 'metric' time.
"Metric" just means "a measurement standard" (Score:2)
The words "meter" and "metric" are both derived from Greek by way of Latin and French.
Re:don't you mean decimal time? (Score:4, Informative)
Neither, really, although it's true that the "metric system" is based on the meter as one of the fundamental units of measure. But both words ultimately derive from the Greek word "metron", meaning "measure". That's why the little dials that measure your electricity usage, for example, are also called "meters", and why software developers use the term "metrics" to refer to measurable aspects of their systems.
surely the correct term is 'decimal' and not 'metric' time.
"Metric time" is presumably meant to imply that the system of time in question would properly belong to the metric system of units. But you'd be correct in assuming there's nothing intrinsic about "metric time" that relates it to the "metric system", other than that both systems rely heavily on powers of 10.
Finally, useful units! (Score:2, Interesting)
Take a look at the Planck units - oddly enough, they work out to be particularly meaningful (equivalencies here are approximate see the write-up [planck.com] for specifics):
186,000 miles per second - it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
Re:Finally, useful units! (Score:1)
Nice .sig (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Finally, useful units! (Score:1)
Deep Linking solution (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not rocket science. I have seen people protect linked javascript code that way, why not "deep" pages? That way they don't have to write a usage policy to cover their wishes, it is a technical solution.
-Pete
Re:Deep Linking solution (Score:1)
Trivial, just do it in the web server, not JavaScript or anything the client deals with. The downside is it tends to make it impossable for people to bookmark your pages (normally no referer...some old browesrs sent whatever page they were on before the bookmark).
I wrote this into a CGI script once, but the right place is an apache module, or whatever the equivolent for your web server is. Probbably take less hten a day. In fact since I havn't been keeping up, it might already be in Apache!
Re:Deep Linking solution (Score:1)
Re:Deep Linking solution (Score:2)
Once you come through the front page to see the item, I'm pretty happy, even if you decide to later look at a cached version, or a print out. I'm less happy if you give the deep link to all your friends and they skip the front page.
Or at least that is the opinions I got from some people that wanted to prevent deep linking a few years ago. For my personal content so long as you link to one of my HTML pages that's fine (my JPGs, not so much). They should all have up links. More over they are all gone since I left UUNET, but that's another story.
Mostly I don't so much care if people deep link to my stuff, or well designed commercial works. It's how the web was designed. Framing another site's stuff though, that is a rip off.
here is the link... (Score:2, Informative)
FAKE! [hardocp.com]
Looks real (Score:2)
-shrug-
I'm no photoshop guru (I prefer Gimp
We...? (Score:1)
Re:We...? (Score:1)
-J
Arbitrary Units (Score:2, Insightful)
So a day isnt a universal constant. So what? Saying that we divide it by 24 is no more or less arbitrary than saying that a Planck minute is 10% shorter than a 'regular' minute. Why not multiply the Planck unit by 11 instead of 10? Wouldnt that just about clear up the 10%? [yes, I know, ~11.111, so sue me. The point is that the two are just as arbitrary]
I wasnt going to say anything, but then I took a glance at the Hex-Clock page, which actually suggested that 16 divisions were somehow less arbitrary than 24 divisions. Is there somebody out there who actually believes this?
I, personally, like the idea of using universal constants as the basis for some time scales. But to suggest that this somehow makes the way we talk about time non-arbitrary, that seems far-fetched.
Re:Arbitrary Units (Score:2)
second = 20 thirds (day = 120^3 thirds)
metre = 40.8 inches (so g = 1 in/th/th)
kilogram = 68 ounces (so 1 cu in water = 1 oz)
kelvin = 17424 seconds, so 100dC = 121*120^s sec
In this system
1 ozf = 1 oz in/th^2
1 'cal' = 1 oz in^2 / th^2
g = 1 in/th/th = 9.80392156 m/s
d = 1 oz/cu in = 998.784 kg/m3
j = 1 erg/oz t = 4186.8512 J/kg K
The thermal, gravitational and absolute systems coinside, and the units are much better than the CGS: 1 W = 14.14944 power units. 1 KW = 0.9826 * 120^2 power units.
Re:Arbitrary Units (Score:2)
And even if we went with powers-of-two on the grounds that it's less arbitrary since the universe has lot of polarity/duality to it, scaling the units to something useful for humans is arbitrary, too.
Fake Card Story May have Affected ATI Share Price (Score:3, Informative)
FAKE 8500 Maxx !! (Score:1)
A. Notice that the screws on both heatsinks are in the EXACT same position.
B. Note that the fans are in the EXACT same position on BOTH fans !
C. Note that the light and shadows displayed on both fans are exactly the same (minus one or two blurred out tiny reflections), even though each fan is in a different position on the card and different distances from the light source/camera !!
Just my 2 cents !!
P.S. notice the dark blurry line running from the bottom of the card to the top of the card to the left of the farthest heatsink....tsk tsk tsk....is that the BEST you fakes can do ?!
If I install a GPL'ed zoning system... (Score:4, Funny)
-- Terry
Re:If I install a GPL'ed zoning system... (Score:1)
Vinge's Second-based TIme (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Vinge's Second-based TIme (Score:3, Interesting)
I really liked this system too, especially for a space-faring culture which has no need for marking time as integer fractions of the rotation of an arbitrary blue-green planet. Seems to me that it'll make a whole lot of sense to use something like this when we get permanent off-planet colonies. (Especially Martian colonies, where a day is close enough to an Earth day for the residents to live by the Martian light/dark cycle, but just enough off to bollox calendars between there and mother Earth.)
Of course, my favorite part about this system is Vinge's description of when the calendar began...
"Beginning of the epoch" indeed!
disadvantages of using "fundamental" system (Score:1)
28 hour day (Score:1)
Not too many physicists on the street (Score:2, Insightful)
While a system that would depend on "the fundamental constants of the universe" is a great idea, I do not think most people on the street care to do physics problems in their head.
Rather, they will be concerned with something that regulates their behavior as greatly as the rotation of the Earth. Not fixing the time to the cycle of a day would confuse most people. Imagine having to go to work at a different time every day of the year.
This second time system also has a problem. While it looks very interesting, it is base 16. The entire argument was proposed over finding a base 10 system of time. Adding a base 16 time system to the metric system would be a step toward returning the metric system to something like the English Imperial System. Such a system would only be good for computers since it works no nicely with binary numbers. But if that is to be done with time, why not recreate the entire metric system for computers and base it on 16 and not 10?
However, when arbitrarily choosing a time system to replace the current one, the choice should probably be something made for people. Base 10 works well for those of use without physics degrees or wetware interfaces, and it fits into the original scheme of the metric system.
Or you could roll down the windows ... (Score:2)
IIRC it was heat-only ... this is santa cruz we're talking about, not the gobi, or texas. (Of course, since texas is underwater right now, that's sort of silly sounding.) Anyway if any thermostat wanted heat, they all got heat, and any thermostat that wanted heat opened its own vent. More to the point, there's no server in this system, just some simple gates and some digital thermostats, and a little tiny bit of custom logic. Really, you can do the whole thing with relays, you don't even need ICs. You could probably steal every single part you needed from pick and pull if you looted some cars of their environmental systems and various relays.
Remember, the paranormal hamster says, "Hardware solutions to software problems."
Water (Score:2, Interesting)
1 centimeter^3 = 1 milliliter = 1 gram = 1 degree celsius = 1 calorie
Physics is nice, but life at the surface of this planet involves one heck of a lot of practical problems involving water.
Furthermore, a measurement system based on fundamental constants is not all that helpful for solving problems at the human scale. As a portion of all math problems solved by all humans everywhere, those involving c, G, etc. are a pretty small subset. Viva Newtonian mechanics!
Now, a system that reconciled pi and e with integer values would be helpful. Unfortunately, no such system can exist. "I have discovered a truly remarkable proof but this margin is too small to contain it".
(7361
No law against linking (Score:2, Interesting)
Your terms of use state "We reserve the right to withdraw permission for any link.". Unfortunately, you have no right to withdraw or grant permission to link to your website, as there is no law stating that permission is required to link to another entity's website.
Furthermore, it states "By using the NPR Web sites, you agree to be bound by these terms of use.". This statement also has no power because a user of the website is not aware of the terms of use upon entering the website. Even if users were made to be aware of your terms of service before entering your site, the legal weight of the terms is still quite dubious.
Thank you,
A User
Re:Start with changing time slices (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Dual ATI board (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Dual ATI board (Score:2)
3dFX's SLI technology had two Voodoo2 cards working in tandem, one rendering even scanlines, the other rendering odd scanlines. Hence, Scan Line Interleave.
The tech used in the Voodoo3, 4 and 5, who's name escapes me, would break the screen up into X number of sections and hand each section to a different chip. In theory, you could scale this up to however far you'd like. As I recall, though, the 6500 card, with four chips, (TMI or TDI or somesuch, it was called) required a wallwart and a wall socket.
Re:Dual ATI board (Score:1)
The voodoo 2s (like the original voodoo graphics) used a pass-though cable to add 3d support to an existing machine. A cable would come out of the 2d card and go directly into the voodoo 2. A cable would then connect the voodoo 2 to the display device. The voodoo 2 was the first 3dfx card to support SLI, scan line interleave, where one card would render the even scan lines and the other would render the odd ones. The speed was about equal to a voodoo 3 2000, and resolution was limited to a max of 1024x768. This configuration was only obtainable by adding another voodoo 2 pci card of the same brand and memory configuration and connecting them with a special cable.
The voodoo 3 was not capable of doing SLI. Although SLI was a very popular option with gamers, the voodoo 3 did not have support for it, largely because it was more of an improved banshee (technology-wise) than a voodoo 2. 3dfx chose to use the 'voodoo' name in order to associate it with the successful voodoo line rather than the banshee card which was, for lack of a better word, an utter failure.
The voodoo 4 could not do SLI either. While it used 3dfx's VSA 100 chip which was capable of doing SLI, the defining characteristic of the voodoo 4 card was that it had only one gpu.
SLI was brought back with the voodoo 5. Instead of returning to the multiple-card-voodoo-2 method of doing SLI, 3dfx chose to put all of the chips on the same board. The voodoo 5 5500 had two VSA 100s, whereas the voodoo 5 6000 had four.
That's the deal with 3dfx.
Regarding MAXX technology conflicting with NT kernel based OSs, I don't think it would just becase it supported SLI. One of my friends is using a voodoo 5 5500 card with windows 2000 right now, and he hasn't had any problems. However, that doesn't rule out problems with other parts of the MAXX architecture.
Three little words... [Mod Parent Up Please] (Score:1, Offtopic)
Yes, this is a possible. Just because you can doesn't mean you will. Anyone that attempts this "hack" will be busted ASAFP. This would require prior control over either the target computer (internal DNS cache or DNS setting) or the control over its DNS server. Either attack would be extremely difficult.
The first would require a previous hack into the Mac OS X machine. If you can do that, why go to the trouble of altering the DNS cache or DNS setting? With Mac OS X's BSD roots, its not too tuff to modify the system with root access. Pointless.
The second attack option would require you to break into a public DNS server, modify the tables, slip out and hope that your non-targets (huge numbers of Windows users) don't start complaining to the DNS admin about problems. This attack is a possibility but most likely will be noticed quickly.
This is not to excuse Apple but I think its nice that I can read in clear text with ettercap [sourceforge.net] what is going on with my Mac OS X system when it contacts the "Reality Distortion Field" [tuxedo.org] of the Internet. If I want to wear a tinfoil hat and put Tapioca pudding [google.com] in a locked jar, I can always turn automatic Software Updates off and download the updates straight from the Apple web site [apple.com].
However, it would be nice if Apple used some sort of the handshake to ensure the safety of the update. There is a myriad of options to choose from...all with benefits and deficits.
Think it out before entering paranoid frenzy (Score:1, Offtopic)
This is untrue. Yes, you can definitely spoof the DNS, if the circumstances are right, and the resolver doesn't support DNSSEC. I don't know if Apple's resolver supports DNSSEC. But practically every software update anybody ever downloads is downloaded in the clear over an unauthenticated connection to an FTP server or an HTTP server. This is not in itself a security hole.
The hole exists _only_ if there is no client-side authentication of what's been downloaded. The authentication needn't be done in-band - it's quite possible that the update client knows an Apple Software Update public key. The client should be doing an MD5 checksum across the entire binary and checking that against a published signature. Does the Apple Software Update client do that? I don't know. As far as I can tell, neither does the person who published this "exploit."
Until we know the answer to this question, saying that this is an exploit is kind of absurd, particularly because I don't know of _anybody_ who downloads software over HTTP+SSL. If Apple are bad guys because they don't use HTTP+SSL, so is everybody else, from Redhat to NetBSD to the ISC to HP.
Re:Think it out before entering paranoid frenzy (Score:2)
The authentication is either non-existent, or very weak. You can get fake update packages that are really backdoors [cunap.com] and the updater will install them if you trick it into taking them. This guy used ARP spoofing which requires you to be on the same physical network. Maybe fairly safely outside the building via 802.11, but still on the same network. Or at least already have cracked another machine on that network.
So yeah, I would say Apple needs to get it's act together and start signing it's stuff, and make the updater support signed packages. If they store the keys in the normal keychain that could even let 3rd parties using Apple's normal installer (assuming you check in the install app, not update!) do "more secure" updates. Of corse the better OSX apps are just "drag into place", and don't use an installer...
[Mod Parent Down Please!] (Score:2, Interesting)
Even outside the path, it's possible to 'poison' many DNS resolvers (including maybe the one on your Mac), but even without that approach, every router, proxy, transparent cache or other link can be subverted and made to feed you trojan content.
Having your web connection subverted happens to you almost every click - I'm certain your ISP has a transparent cache, which just served you this article. How do you know it didn't serve you a bogus page with some Internet Exploder 'sploit embeded in it? Maybe the whole internet came from one PC on the other end of that phone line - did you go out and check it all yourself?
The simplest way around this is for Apple to sign their software packages, using their private key, and for you to check that signature (or your Mac to do it for you when it installs) against the public key distributed on every genuine Mac install CD (or verified by 'out-of-band' means).
This works fin for every other sensible packaging scheme (rpm uses gpg/pgp, for example), and even Mickey$oft have got the hang of it.
You could use 'ssl' (https) to access the Apple site as an alternative, but simply signing packages works best, because then it doesn't matter how you obtain them - ftp, http, cdrom, floppy, email, kazaa, ed2k. If the signature doesn't match, don't install it.
The issue then, is of Apples' disdain for simple, proven and widely used security measures, not one of having to have
Re:Why are the fonts so ugly (Score:1)
We should create a measurement system based on newbies.
noob - the time it takes a newbie to read the manual after opening the box.
Man, that guy was outta there in a milli-noob.
Re:Why are the fonts so ugly (Score:2)
Surely when I said none of the options under the fonts menu influenced the problem, you understood that I was including the options to change the fonts.
Re:Haha (Score:1)
I can't find your post in the other article where you pointed that out. Can you point me towards it?
*thinks he won't get a response because the AC that posted that response didn't know either.*
Re:Why the metric system rules (Score:1)
Of course, we all know how temperature plays an important role in volume.