Comment Re:digital? (Score 1) 205
And a very few telegraphs are podial or foot operated
Foot-pedal-keys are used in the amateur radio world.
And a very few telegraphs are podial or foot operated
Foot-pedal-keys are used in the amateur radio world.
Mod parent +5 +/- noise insightful
where noise is significantly less than 0.5
with that logic the blind have been reading digital books for ages
So have regular people, albeit with a "base" big enough to hold alphanumeric characters plus symbols (about 60- or 70-something for most English text).
The blind have been reading binary (raised dot/no raised dot) books for ages.
Aussie telegraph machines used a 5 character Baudot coding
Someone once told me that in Australia all of their 0's and 1's were upside-down.
I checked and you know what, they were right!
Does the fact that it is binary confer digital status automatically?
In this case, yes.
I assume you are talking about Morse code, which consists of "current off" and "current on" states grouped into dits ("dot"), dahs ("dashes," 3 times the length of a dit), inter-dit/dah spacing (period of no current, same length as a dit), inter-"letter" spacing (3 times the length of a dit), and inter-word spacing (7 times the length of a dit).
Telegram posts you???
There are no good reason to implement Telex/telegraph on fiber
Just encapsulate it in another protocol that does do well over fiber and call it a day.
As for "good reasons" to even have such protocols, the hobbyist, novelty, and for the time being in certain countries, legal markets are the only ones I can think of. As a text-message-delivery protocol to use when fiber is available, there are so many better ones to choose from.
It's still binary: current, no current.
SOS SOS
would be
which in current terms (C=current, N=no current) is
CNCNCNNNCCCNCCCNCCCNNNCNCNCNNNNNNNCNCNCNNNCCCNCCCNCCCNNNCNCNC
dot = 1 unit of time
dash = 3 units of time
inter-dot/dash silence = 1 unit of time
inter-letter silence = 3 units of time
inter-word silence = 7 units of time
You are doing it wrong...
I can hear it now...
Viagra cheap from the canadian border,
dit dah dah dah dit dah dah dah
Long erection for a dollar
dit dah dah dah dit dah dah dah
There, fixed that for you.
In a perfect world where caller-ID can't be spoofed, a fax from a "registered" fax machine that is known to be run by people trusted by the state to not forge signatures makes sense.
Otherwise, it's open for abuse.
I don't know if it's still the case, but when faxes first became "legal" ways to send signed documents in the USA, they typically had to be followed up by hardcopy signature within a specified period of time, a week I think.
At least with hardcopy, if you suspect a forged signature you can usually test the paper for fingerprints.
There are three distinct possibilities:
1. Snowden is correct
2. Snowden honestly misinterpreted a far more innocuous -- but still quite possibly overstepping of constitutional bounds -- intel-gathering operation as a panopticon
3. Snowden is lying for e-fame
The sad conclusion that I'm forced to make is that I don't have enough data to rule out any one of these possibilities, although my personal belief is that number two is closest by a hair to being correct. Snowden sounds exactly like the type of kid who might fabricate or embellish the truth in order to get the Reddit userbase to hoist him up on their shoulders and triumphantly dump Gatorade on his head. But that doesn't mean he *did* fabricate or embellish.
You realize that those CPU's are still on the market even though they're not in production right? Then again, if you notice that it's "lifetime trends" which was rather the point.
It's at best disingenuous to argue that a manufacturer's product is "a better bang for the buck" when they're not actually selling the product you're talking about. I understand now--your point was to lie with data, after all.
Yeah...well no, you might want to look up the price/core cost vs AMD and Intel, then you'll quickly see AMD tromps all over it. And really with the Vishera cores, you're seeing a negligible loss in real world performance. The only place where Intel beats AMD in cost-per-core is with the celery(celeron) line.
You do realize that your chart is heavily skewed toward CPUs which aren't current production, right? I mean, the top 11 SKUs on that chart range in price from $11 to $22 and can only be purchased from random 3rd parties on Amazon at fire sale prices. You have to get to the 12th SKU in order to find something available at retail (from New Egg)... and it's an Intel product. #13 is also an out of production unit, while #14 is another Intel product. #15 is an honest to god current production AMD chip, though.
While I won't accuse you of lying with data (I've done quick research that appeared to support my conclusion and ended up with egg on my face, as well) the point you're trying to make (other than that Celeron beats AMD in price/performance) is totally undermined by your supporting data.
I heard you like electronics stores so we put an electronics store in an electronics store so you can impulse-buy while you're impulse-buying.
I'm waiting for the Starbucks inside the Microsoft Store inside the Best Buy.
Modeling paged and segmented memories is tricky business. -- P.J. Denning
