|
Took me a bit to find this today, then saw this article[^], which would have helped immensely. Nice of them to bury the "showcase" feature of 8.1.
--------------
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Took me a bit to find this today, then saw this article[^], which would have helped immensely. Nice of them to bury the "showcase" feature of 8.1.
Seems all reasonable and straight forward to find, to me.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, if you want to completely change the look and feel of Windows, also changing the way programs open from full-screen to normal, you just right-click on the taskbar...
They should have just put a 5mm2 "charm", 41% of the distance between the centre and the edge of the screen, 23 degrees from vertical.
That would have fit much better with the current Windows UX philosophy.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Yeah, if you want to completely change the look and feel of Windows, also changing the way programs open from full-screen to normal, you just right-click on the taskbar...
They should have just put a 5mm2 "charm", 41% of the distance between the centre and the edge of the screen, 23 degrees from vertical.
That would have fit much better with the current Windows UX philosophy.
I'm not using 8 let alone 8.1. I was just being my usual flippant self.
Have had to sort out issues on 2 clients laptops that were using Windows 8. Cludged my was through and hope they don't call again.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Codeproject Newsletter states:
Last operating ICT 1301 mainframe computer set to run again[^]
1MHz, 576KB, no waiting(thanks Ravi Bhavnani)
Really slow by todays standards, very small memory today also. Then I read the article, it says 576kb. That's 72KB, eight times smaller number because the measured size (KB) is 8 times bigger than kb or Kb. (b is for bits, B is for Bytes, I think k and K both mean 2 to the 10th power.)
So, who made the typo?
|
|
|
|
|
Don't assume 8-bit bytes either.
"Its main memory came in increments of 400 words of 48 bits (12 decimal digits) plus two parity bits. The maximum size was 2,000 words" -- Wikipedia
|
|
|
|
|
I still fondly remember the CDC computer with its 60 bit (10 character) word size who put to shame IBM's accuracy. IBM's double was quite a bit less accurate than CDC's float. You had to do something special to support mixed case letters, which reduced the size to 5 characters per word. (You had to dedicate one character to indicate the next letter was lower case.)
PIEBALDconsult wrote: 400 words of 48 bits (12 decimal digits)
That would be just under 19Kb which jibes with the article. CDC NEVER used decimal digits except when printing or converting to text. It would take a lot of additional processing to maintain digital numbering while also doing mathematical operations. You could almost (one short) store a 10 billion number in its word. A 48 bit signed integer could hold a number value of 280 trillion. A 60 bit integer could hold a number over 4 million times bigger than that.
|
|
|
|
|
That would be me - fingers aren't used to typing KB in lower case anymore.
--------------
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for pointing out the article in the newsletter. Never ever used that mainframe, but it brought back memories. When I first saw PC's in the 80's, it was a joke compared to the mainframes I was using. Now my laptop makes the mainframes I was using a joke in comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
You're very welcome.
It's probably the case that an iPod Touch or a watch has as much computing power as some of those beasts. After all, the iPad 2 is supposed to be as fast as the Cray 2[^], and I remember seeing one of those working once and it was crazy fast.
--------------
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
The first Cray was crazy fast because of vector processing and the chips were so small they could generally be within 2 feet of each other. (In a four foot square area, 8 feet high) The smaller size reduced the speed of light transfer time significantly. The vector processing was just automatic multi-threading the code did for you when it compiled a loop. It would determine the loop could be vectorized, it would move 64 step values into 64 separate register locations, simultaneously execute the logic, increase the location 64 times the step size and repeat. It was incredible, the compiler just did the multithreading logic for you.
I worked with them all the time, but I only saw them in pictures.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: iPod Touch ~~ iPad 2
Is that how we measure processing speed, these days?
In that case, my EUR 150 android tab = 2 ipad 3s.
How strange that 2 ipad 3s also = EUR 1200.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: KB
 No shouting in the Lounge!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
PETA is planning to snoop onharass hunters with drones drones.[^]. Talk about a brillant plan, what could possibly go wro... *PULL*[^]?
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
It will probably help. If you're not allowed to run dogs, I bet those drones will get the deer up and running! You can't hardly see them otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Shotguns make it too easy to shoot birds, they should be forced to use rifles.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
That would be highly unsafe. Bird shot is light enough that it rapidly looses velocity due to air drag and is unable to penetrate skin beyond a few hundred feet to few hundred yards down range[^]; a rifle/pistol bullet fired into the air can kill when it comes down more than a mile away.
Edit: changed link to a post with data for a wider variety of shot/etc combinations.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
<quote>a rifle/pistol bullet fired into the air can kill when it comes down more than a mile away.
Only if shot at an angle. Shot straight up or even a few degrees off, the bullet will not obtain enough velocity on the way back down to have the same affect.
|
|
|
|
|
You normally don't aim strait up when dronebird hunting.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
|
that was my thought - new sport, 'drone hunting' 
|
|
|
|
|
There's some regional legislation in play to issue drone hunting permits already. Colorado I think.
|
|
|
|
|
richcb wrote: <quote>a rifle/pistol bullet fired into the air can kill when it comes down more than a mile away...Only if shot at an angle
I believe the drag to mass ratio of a .22 bullet won't let it reach a mile, even if you shot at a 45 degree angle. Pretty much the same principle as firing straight up, but it will still be moving fast enough to kill a human if you hit the right spot. A leg hit shouldn't kill (still might) getting hit point-blank with a 30 ought 6.
|
|
|
|
|
They're plenty enough to kill a pool at a half mile though. My friend is still a tad upset at his neighbor over that.
Always plan for such things when shooting at airborne targets.
|
|
|
|
|
This might stop them[^]
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
