 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/03/2013 3:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:25:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I have always said, a hundred thousand million times. Don’t exaggerate.
>> ;-)
>
> Oh, now, be fair, it was a few billion times. ;)
>
So now you want to argue over how many zeros are in a billion. ;-)
I believe we, as a group, had this dissuasion last millennium.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:33:29 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 22/03/2013 3:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:25:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> I have always said, a hundred thousand million times. Don’t
>>> exaggerate.
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Oh, now, be fair, it was a few billion times. ;)
>>
>>
> So now you want to argue over how many zeros are in a billion. ;-)
> I believe we, as a group, had this dissuasion last millennium.
Nah, I don't want to argue about that. ;)
I want a new series of Clue. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/03/2013 5:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:33:29 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>> So now you want to argue over how many zeros are in a billion. ;-)
>> I believe we, as a group, had this dissuasion last millennium.
>
> Nah, I don't want to argue about that. ;)
>
> I want a new series of Clue. ;)
>
"You'll have had your chips, then, Dougal?"
I've no idea then the next series will be broadcast. It was recorded at
the end of last year.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:34:30 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 22/03/2013 5:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:33:29 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>
>>> So now you want to argue over how many zeros are in a billion. ;-)
>>> I believe we, as a group, had this dissuasion last millennium.
>>
>> Nah, I don't want to argue about that. ;)
>>
>> I want a new series of Clue. ;)
>>
>>
> "You'll have had your chips, then, Dougal?"
"And I've had me tea, too!"
> I've no idea then the next series will be broadcast. It was recorded at
> the end of last year.
They usually turn up in June IIRC. But I didn't realise they had
recorded a series already that hadn't aired yet.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-3-2013 22:21, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> system *easily* out-performs any 4GHz Pentium-IV system in terms of GUI
>>> responsiveness.
>>
>> That's a physical impossibility, given that a 4GHs P4 is probably at
>> least
>> a hundred times faster then any Amiga in all possible regards (CPU speed,
>> memory speed, HD speed...)
>>
[snip]
> So yes, a P4 is *vastly* superior to the Amiga's 68020 in terms of
> compute power. (A fact easily verified by comparing Debian 68k agains
> Debian i386.) But compute performance is *not* the only metric of
> importance when considering apparent user responsiveness.
>
> Having said all that, in the main PC hardware seems to have finally
> reached the point where an expensive PC is as fast as my 20-year old
> Amiga in terms of visible responsiveness.
I am afraid Andy is correct here (except for his prediction/observation
that the PC almost caught up, any generation of a PC system was
responsive when it came out of the box, but that stopped after you had
used it for some time).
The Amiga was a multiprocessor system with the GUI almost entirely
handled by a coprocessor/firmware/hardware, the distinction is hard to
make in this case. That meant that neither IO nor computations would
interrupt the GUI; even if you completely overloaded the machine with
computations and disk access the system was totally responsive visually.
Many times my Amiga completely hung on something but I could still move
the windows in real time, the mouse was functioning, even the buttons
could be pressed.
The only way a modern PC could even come close to such GUI performance
is when one processor would be set aside for GUI only with no other
tasks and even then the other processes could steal so many cycles that
the GUI is slowed down markedly.
You can now complain that the screen resolution of the Amiga was much
less, that it was not a full implementation of a preemptive multiuser
system, that it had no virtual memory etc. But that is all irrelevant to
the observation that the Amiga had the best GUI response of any system I
have seen yet.
--
When you ask a group of experts in their field how to allocate
research money, they are quite likely to advise to give it
to the larger research groups, headed by experts in their field
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/03/2013 8:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> They usually turn up in June IIRC. But I didn't realise they had
> recorded a series already that hadn't aired yet.
I thought I saw that they had done a series of recordings before
Christmas and the last one was for the Xmas Special. I did not read it
properly, as I was looking for when the next broadcast will be. And some
of the fan sites can be "So! gushing".
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-03-21 17:09, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>> Perhaps the part I don't understand is "why would you ever want to do
>>> this?"
>>
>> Because you have a collection of video files that you want to watch on
>> your TV?
>
> Where would you get these files from?
>
My Canon EOS Rebel T3i, for example...
>> Because maybe you want to rip your DVD collection to a digital format so
>> you can access them all without having to take them out of the case? (I
>> know people who do that - it's the same reason one might rip a CD to MP3s
>> - some do it so the original media won't be damaged or worn through use).
>
> This is the only source I can think of - and I'm the sort of person who
> would play the actual physical disks rather than the lower-quality
> recompressed versions.
>
It's harder to put crayon on a .mp4 than on a DVD and a 3 year old
doesn't mind the occasional compression artifact.
> Besides, aren't all DVDs copy-protected anyway?
>
You may want to sit down for this, but I got news for you...
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:44:46 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 22/03/2013 8:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> They usually turn up in June IIRC. But I didn't realise they had
>> recorded a series already that hadn't aired yet.
>
> I thought I saw that they had done a series of recordings before
> Christmas and the last one was for the Xmas Special. I did not read it
> properly, as I was looking for when the next broadcast will be. And some
> of the fan sites can be "So! gushing".
LOL
The site I look at is the "officially unofficial" site - they seem to be
on target with the timeframes, but right now the upcoming series is all
"TBD".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/03/2013 7:18 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> You may want to sit down for this, but I got news for you...
LOL
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/03/2013 7:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The site I look at is the "officially unofficial" site - they seem to be
> on target with the timeframes, but right now the upcoming series is all
> "TBD".
Sometimes the BBC will tell you when the next broadcast will be. I do go
to the "officially unofficial" site but I tried digging deeper. I did
not find anything but that thought stuck. Anyway June is too long to
wait. I will go away and invent a time machine.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
