Too bad, I used to have a bunch of these I couldn't give away. Don't know what shipping to the UK would be, but O2s aren't that heavy...
The collected works of dc_v01 - Page 2
MisterDNA wrote: That car was more like a truck sometimes and I've yet to find another car that can swallow as much gear as that one did.
The latest Camaro I liked was the '69. Hatchbacks do swallow a lot of gear, though. I moved the entire chassis of my '87 Merkur XR4Ti to the junkyard in the back of my '85 Toyota Supra - in pieces though. Cut with a blowtorch. Not recommended - use a Sawz-all - much faster. I was using it as an additional form of physical therapy, though, after my beloved car was T-boned by a drunk.
As for my original list - Ferrari's and Aston's get highly model dependent. Ford GT is great. Nissan, not so much - I'd rather have an earlier Skyline GT-R - passion for inline-6 engines.
Here are some 1997 Academic/Educational prices in US Dollars - these are likely heavily discounted for the main systems, but add-ons maybe not so much. I don't really know what SGI's discount policy was, however. Interestingly/Unfortunately, the best graphics they have on the Octane is just SI, so an I2 Max Impact is the most expensive configuration listed. An extra R10K processor on the Octane seems like an incredible deal at the price. Like most .edu systems I've seen though, they shipped with very little memory, and unfortunately it doesn't seem like they're often upgraded.
mapesdhs wrote: Never ceases to amaze me how much extra RAM costs in original pricing.
I hadn't paid attention - over $20,000 a gigabyte!
mapesdhs wrote: Hmm, some of the prices in that PDF look kinda wierd. How come the R10K/195 I2 Max is only $1K more than the R4K/250 I2 Solid?
The product codes suggest the I2 is a Max aswell.
Oh, and I think the extra R10K in the Octane might be for a dual-175, judging by the product code.
You're right, it looks like there are several misprints. I bet the product codes are right judging by the prices! Makes a lot more sense now. I wonder if you could have held them to it? I didn't even know they made dual 175s. Even with the I2 R4K/250 actually being a Max instead of a Solid, it's interesting that there appears to be less premium for an R10K over an R4K than I would have thought.
sybrfreq wrote:
dc_v01 wrote:
sybrfreq wrote:
even just a few mV can be lethal in the right spot.
That's an awfully small spot (inside the body). Say a few mA instead so you can drastically widen your target area. You're far more likely to hurt yourself with a low voltage source if it has high current capability (i.e. car battery) by the side effects - the heat and molten metal spraying over you from shorted contacts, etc.
that's like saying you can drown in just an ounce of water, but you're far more likely to spill it and then slip, fall, and crack your head.
To some extent that's true, but the first situation is far more likely to happen. Car batteries are dangerous - there's a reason rescue crews cut the supply. It's quite easy to cause a small explosion by dropping a tool across the terminals. Other high current low voltage supplies are similarly dangerous. Try playing with an arc welder. (No, don't do that if you don't know what you're doing!)
sybrfreq wrote:
deBug wrote:
Depending on who you listen to it seems like 15 to 30mA through the heart can be lethal.
As the body resistance is a few kilo ohms you need well above 12V to create that current.
As the body resistance is a few kilo ohms you need well above 12V to create that current.
Am I correct in thinking that the resistance of dry skin is a few kohms, and inside the body (particularily the heart & brain) could be much lower?
Yes. Anytime you have chemistry with ions - like salts in the water of your body - you have lower resistances. That's why I agreed with your statement about a few mV being potentially life threatening - if you rip open your body, get the electrodes right on your heart or brain, and hit the right spot. The electrodes will need to be close together. I think it's an open question if your more likely to die from the mV potential, or the insertion of the electrodes into the center of a vital organ. Your body exists in a sea of charge - anywhere clothes are touching your body, you routinely generate hundreds of mV potential through rubbing. kV levels are easily possible, if you try. You really don't need to worry about low voltage potentials - please remove that 9V battery from your tongue, though.
That's why it's more useful to talk about current - you can assume the required potential and sufficient charge is there, whatever kV levels are necessary. As deBug pointed out, small currents are potentially lethal, as they can cause heart arrhythmias - irregular hearbeats that your body can't recover from. Ironically, higher currents are actually safer - your heart stops completely and can then recover normally. That's what they do when they apply a defibrillator and zap you. The higher currents are safer up to the point that they really start to fry you.......
sybrfreq wrote:
this thread should be split...
Sure. But I'm not sure what else there is to say....
I had a loopback issue once when the system times didn't match closely enough, not on mac, but pc, and different forum, so YMMV.
Bill622 wrote:
I understand it can be deleted.
Counting down.....
Congratulations! Echoing everyone, Thanks!
"Yes, this again" is right. There have been many posts about this before, I guess I should add this to the wiki or something. Maybe it's already there?
As noted already, not necessarily. You need to determine if your monitor is capable of handling Sync-On-Green signals (SOG). If it is, a Sun adapter will work, possibly only with modification. Unfortunately, many more misguided souls bought Suns for some reason, so they are more common. Any adapter advertised "SUN/SGI" on eBay or anywhere else, is a Sun adapter . The SGI gets in there because it may work with a SOG monitor on an SGI.
SOG signaling only requires three connections - Red, Green, Blue - the 3 large coaxial pins on the 13W3 connector. These are common to both the Sun and SGI pinouts, hence the reason they can be used. However, the center 10 pins have alternate sync and monitor ID pins that are not routed correctly for an SGI. With some monitor combinations, they may cause problems. Cutting out these pins and severing the connection will make these adapters work with that SOG monitor. If for some reason you don't believe this works, you have not used an old DEC or similar workstation that only had 3 BNC connectors to the monitor, or hooked up a DVD player to a TV with component video.
If you do not have a SOG capable monitor, you may be SOL. You will need an SGI specific 13W3 adapter that routes the horizontal and vertical sync signals to the appropriate H/V pins on the VGA HD15 connector. This is the common signaling scheme for the PC world. The only places I know for sure that sell appropriate 13W3 adapters were SGI, deepspacecables.com, and reputable.com. As noted, deepspace has had issues but I heard they were back online. I heard Greg Douglas at Reputable may be offline. Ian Mapleson may also sell them, don't know but it seems like the kind of thing he would do. I saw a place, Ultra something, maybe Ultraspec, use the search, that had a promising adapter (no mention of Sun) but never tried it. si87.com may also have something.
Making your own from parts is possible but expensive unless you have a 13W3 cable you want to scrap.
Using a non-SOG monitor with an SGI specific adapter may still have problems, although this is uncommon - the sync signals still present on the green channel can cause issues. It may be possible to disable these sync signals with a setmon command but I haven't verified this.
dclough: If you have the Sun adapter, cut pins, and a SOG monitor, it will work, unless in the process of cutting pins or something the adapter was damaged in such a way that all three connections are not made. It may be possible that you are set to a resolution the monitor doesn't support, possible the monitor doesn't support the res only in SOG mode. The monitor may also not support SOG even though a datasheet says it does. Note that checking that the monitor works on an O2 is not a check of SOG capability , since the O2 also has H/V sync. In a quick search I didn't see anything about that Acer one way or the other.
[EDIT: addressed dclough above, not emgaron]
[emgaron: No reason that a SOG setup that works on an Octane shouldn't work on an Indy. Try playing with the setmon command, I think its "setmon -sg" to be certain that the SOG signal is being output.]
cris_adder wrote: From other posts on the forum it seems that the stand 13W3 adapter that is typical for a SUN will not work on the Octane...
As noted already, not necessarily. You need to determine if your monitor is capable of handling Sync-On-Green signals (SOG). If it is, a Sun adapter will work, possibly only with modification. Unfortunately, many more misguided souls bought Suns for some reason, so they are more common. Any adapter advertised "SUN/SGI" on eBay or anywhere else, is a Sun adapter . The SGI gets in there because it may work with a SOG monitor on an SGI.
SOG signaling only requires three connections - Red, Green, Blue - the 3 large coaxial pins on the 13W3 connector. These are common to both the Sun and SGI pinouts, hence the reason they can be used. However, the center 10 pins have alternate sync and monitor ID pins that are not routed correctly for an SGI. With some monitor combinations, they may cause problems. Cutting out these pins and severing the connection will make these adapters work with that SOG monitor. If for some reason you don't believe this works, you have not used an old DEC or similar workstation that only had 3 BNC connectors to the monitor, or hooked up a DVD player to a TV with component video.
If you do not have a SOG capable monitor, you may be SOL. You will need an SGI specific 13W3 adapter that routes the horizontal and vertical sync signals to the appropriate H/V pins on the VGA HD15 connector. This is the common signaling scheme for the PC world. The only places I know for sure that sell appropriate 13W3 adapters were SGI, deepspacecables.com, and reputable.com. As noted, deepspace has had issues but I heard they were back online. I heard Greg Douglas at Reputable may be offline. Ian Mapleson may also sell them, don't know but it seems like the kind of thing he would do. I saw a place, Ultra something, maybe Ultraspec, use the search, that had a promising adapter (no mention of Sun) but never tried it. si87.com may also have something.
Making your own from parts is possible but expensive unless you have a 13W3 cable you want to scrap.
Using a non-SOG monitor with an SGI specific adapter may still have problems, although this is uncommon - the sync signals still present on the green channel can cause issues. It may be possible to disable these sync signals with a setmon command but I haven't verified this.
dclough: If you have the Sun adapter, cut pins, and a SOG monitor, it will work, unless in the process of cutting pins or something the adapter was damaged in such a way that all three connections are not made. It may be possible that you are set to a resolution the monitor doesn't support, possible the monitor doesn't support the res only in SOG mode. The monitor may also not support SOG even though a datasheet says it does. Note that checking that the monitor works on an O2 is not a check of SOG capability , since the O2 also has H/V sync. In a quick search I didn't see anything about that Acer one way or the other.
[EDIT: addressed dclough above, not emgaron]
[emgaron: No reason that a SOG setup that works on an Octane shouldn't work on an Indy. Try playing with the setmon command, I think its "setmon -sg" to be certain that the SOG signal is being output.]
Does this really need its own thread? You can add it to the "Yes, this again" thread you posted right after without hijacking it.
But the answer to your question is yes, SGI does.
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/manuals/3000/007-3435-004/pdf/007-3435-004.pdf
They provide excellent documentation for their products. Try pages 309-310. That's the document, not pdf, page number.
But the answer to your question is yes, SGI does.
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/manuals/3000/007-3435-004/pdf/007-3435-004.pdf
They provide excellent documentation for their products. Try pages 309-310. That's the document, not pdf, page number.
japes wrote: Do you have an example of SOG causing a problem? Maybe a really cheap monitor, or a monitor capable of SOG not properly detecting that it had sync signals on both Green and the H/V sync lines and trying to merge two slightly out sync sources.
http://www.raphnet.net/electronique/sync-on-green/sync-on-green_en.php wrote: I[n] case you are wondering, the sync pulse does not interferate with the green signal because the pulses always occur at the end of a line or at the bottom of the screen.
I don't personally have an example and have never seen this happen, but it's been reported here. People started calling good non-SOG monitors "SOG tolerant" or something like that, we can search for that term, bad monitors were "not SOG tolerant". Given your quote and some other factors, I personally tend to think that something else is fubar'd and the reported effect really isn't what it seems to be, but lacking any other evidence take the reports at face value.
Thanks!
ajerimez wrote:
Have not tried Mr. Clean Magic Eraser - sounds like a similar process/result?
Yes. Perhaps better even. I think the pencil eraser leaves leftover gunk all over that is a bit more difficult to cleanup. The magic eraser leaves water behind that wipes up easily with a towel. I can't imagine that it is possible to overdue it with the magic eraser, either. Really, they're magic.
Not to rush to anyone's defense, but I did a double take when I saw the numbers, too. I pay significantly more for electricity (~$.20/kWh) and you saved as much as my entire power bill (~$85)!! My gut instinct would have been that the Origins only draw 300W and saved about half of what you saw. So much for that. Was wondering if its warm enough over there that you need
cooling
year round with the old system on? (multiplying effect?) The environment doesn't affect my electric power bill significantly - just draft/vent motors for the steam furnace, no AC.
recondas wrote:
SAQ wrote:
the only downside would be if you're running something that requires a lot of data to be moved around - the network (especially on O2s, no Gbit) is slower than local data.
Slower than data from a hard drive connected to a 40MB/s bus? Probably not by a whole lot - unless there's a multi-drive stripe and/or a faster controller added.
I had gathered he was talking about graphics data, not data on disk - the 100M b /s network is not fast compared to the whichever connection you're using in the O2 or Octane. I seem to recall the XIO in the Octane is about two orders of magnitude faster and could push 800MB/s - have no idea what kind of connection CRM uses............
leaknoil wrote:
Show me one case of libel decided against someone complaining about a seller in the UK on a forum. Seems simple enough for me. That is all I am asking. Go for it.
Actually, no, that wasn't what you were asking. You asked:
leaknoil wrote:
So you have any examples of what you're claiming or you just make that completely up ?
Referring to:
kramlq wrote:
exactly, which is why US companies prefer to file cases about stuff posted on the internet in a jurisdiction such as the UK.
And kramlq provided it. It's not necessary for him to anticipate every possible permutation of thought you might have, and try to preemptively post a response.
leaknoil wrote:
That has no relevance about what we were talking about. That is all about the wealthy, claimed terrorists, and tabloid journalism.
It's not just that. GE Healthcare is suing a Danish researcher in the UK over claims about their products, stifling scientific debate - this may finally lead to new changes in UK law. This has been pretty big news, which apparently you weren't following given your comments which have an isolationist US tone. kramlq has done more than enough for his point. But that is neither here nor there. The real issue is that it doesn't matter whether sellers win such lawsuits - the threat of the lawsuit, or its process, is just as damaging to most people as the end result. So such suits need not come to trial. If you'd been around long enough, more than one has affected nekochan. And do you think that the changes eBay put into their bidding processes and feedback had nothing to do with legal action?
hamei wrote:
You missed some key words : ...."has Irix disks"
The IRIX disks are worth more than the machine - if it's really a complete set (Foundation, etc.). I do worry that a complete "upgrade set" - i.e. no Foundation disks, might get labeled "complete set". If he's got a full set, he's golden.
Otherwise, in a month we'll have to deal with another post about "I'm trying to install Linux on my new Octane...."
reid wrote:
Zerolapse wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong...but I thought I just read a post that said Deep Space Cables was dead?
-Jesse
-Jesse
I thought they were too. Hopefully the aren't....because I sent them $30!
I would email them and see if you get a response in a couple of days. If you do, great, you'll probably get it. If not, be prepared to wait a bit longer and get ready to escalate whichever dispute mechanism you use...PayPal or CC. I assume you didn't mail them anything!
You probably have a SOG monitor. SUN never used the same pins as SGI for non-SOG signals. For SOG signals, some monitors may not like the other voltages on the other pins, YMMV depending on monitor. See the new wiki article.
I also loved Cricket Graph. And doing log plots is easy in MATLAB.
But really, this should be trivial in Excel - and I think you should probably figure out how to do this, since it's usually the easiest software to find. I can't speak for 2007 <and I know its new interface sucks> but it's no problem in 2003. You simply create your chart with the chart wizard - and be sure to select XY (Scatter) as the chart type, NOT line . I think the problem you describe is from making line graphs. Scatter plots can also have lines, just double click on the data and select a linestyle under the "Patterns" tab. I always put my charts as new sheets, don't think that makes a difference. Double click on the axis you want to make log (or single click, Format -> Selected Axis). Then select the "Scale" tab on the "Format Axis" dialog - check the box for "Logarithmic Scale". Do this for each axis you want to make log. Done!
But really, this should be trivial in Excel - and I think you should probably figure out how to do this, since it's usually the easiest software to find. I can't speak for 2007 <and I know its new interface sucks> but it's no problem in 2003. You simply create your chart with the chart wizard - and be sure to select XY (Scatter) as the chart type, NOT line . I think the problem you describe is from making line graphs. Scatter plots can also have lines, just double click on the data and select a linestyle under the "Patterns" tab. I always put my charts as new sheets, don't think that makes a difference. Double click on the axis you want to make log (or single click, Format -> Selected Axis). Then select the "Scale" tab on the "Format Axis" dialog - check the box for "Logarithmic Scale". Do this for each axis you want to make log. Done!
EDIT: SAQ beat me to it!
Nope, the first OpenGL implementations were Indigo2 IMPACT, and Onyx InfiniteReality respectively.
Perhaps we could define what it means to be OpenGL native ? My understanding was with SAQ on this one. For example, from the old OpenGL FAQ:
I thought Express and RealityEngine supported OpenGL in hardware - as well as IrisGL. The "optimized for OpenGL" part of the Impact line in your quote was a euphemism for removing IrisGL support in the Impact hardware, hence a software translation layer....
jan-jaap wrote:
SAQ wrote:
Express graphics (XS/XZ/Elan/Extreme) are OpenGL native - everything from RealityEngine on had a native OpenGL implementation.
Nope, the first OpenGL implementations were Indigo2 IMPACT, and Onyx InfiniteReality respectively.
Perhaps we could define what it means to be OpenGL native ? My understanding was with SAQ on this one. For example, from the old OpenGL FAQ:
Quote:
Silicon Graphics --- Starting with IRIX 5.2, OpenGL is supported for the following graphics workstations: Indy - Indy XL 8 or 24 bits, XZ (XZ, as of IRIX 5.3) Indigo - Entry Level, XS, XS24, XZ, Elan Indigo2 - XL, XZ, Extreme Crimson - Entry Level, XS, XS24, Elan, Extreme, RealityEngine Onyx - VTX, RealityEngine, RealityEngine2 4D30/35 - Elan
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/graphics/openg ... z0jx47uCNZ
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/graphics/openg ... z0jx47uCNZ
I thought Express and RealityEngine supported OpenGL in hardware - as well as IrisGL. The "optimized for OpenGL" part of the Impact line in your quote was a euphemism for removing IrisGL support in the Impact hardware, hence a software translation layer....
ritchan wrote: You should think of AIX's X11 as something that exists solely to let CATIA run on it.
That's probably a true statement - not just "think of", but fact. UNIX workstations were usually purchased as "workstations" to accomplish a specific task/run specific software - not as general purpose desktops. Anything else was gravy, SGI's included.
squigly wrote:
I got a 13w3 to VGA connector (I think it's SGI/SUN one) and hook it to my Sony 17" flat panel VGA access.
There is no such thing as an SGI/SUN adapter - it is an SGI adapter or a SUN adapter. The 10 small center pins route sync signals differently between the two. If it is a SUN adapter, it will not work with your monitor using standard sync signals. There is another potential method of syncing, however. The three large coaxial contacts in the 13W3 connector carry R,G,B (red, green, blue) signals. Those are standard between the two connectors, and all SGIs also support sending the sync signals on the green connection, in a format called Sync-On-Green (SOG). If your Sony monitor supports SOG signaling , you should be able to make it work even with a SUN adapter as the RGB lines are the same. However, in some cases the small center pins screw up the signaling anyway - it's possible to then make the adapter function by cutting out the offending pins (IIRC it's pin 9, but if you're doing this (using SOG) it's safe to snip them all and difficult to cut just one anyway). Check monitor support first, or get a for-certain SGI adapter that supports H/V sync. Note that some SGI models cannot disable sending sync signals on green (they're always there), which causes some monitors to have a green tint even when the proper H/V sync signals are routed correctly, so the only guarrantee is to use a SOG monitor. I have had good luck with non-SOG monitors but others aren't so lucky.
squeen wrote:
Yes. But most SGI employees used Windoze. I never thought it was right.
Probably most, especially later. But not always. I can say that in the mid-'90s, even the secretaries, sorry office administrators, in the Sacramento sales office used Indys. Took their notes in jot. Salespeople used Showcase.
Far from being impressed, I actually felt sorry for them.
Maybe too late to be useful, sorry I was out for a week.
Those eBay SUN/SGI adapters are SUN adapters. They will only work with SOG monitors on SGI as I described above. If you wish to confirm, use a multimeter and compare the pinout to those for your workstation in the owner's manual on techpubs.sgi.com . Pay particular attention to pins 3, 4, 5 if IIRC on the 13W3. You will find they don't line up with the pinout of a standard VGA 15 pin connector.
Those eBay SUN/SGI adapters are SUN adapters. They will only work with SOG monitors on SGI as I described above. If you wish to confirm, use a multimeter and compare the pinout to those for your workstation in the owner's manual on techpubs.sgi.com . Pay particular attention to pins 3, 4, 5 if IIRC on the 13W3. You will find they don't line up with the pinout of a standard VGA 15 pin connector.
josehill wrote:
O2 display output uses sync on green. Some non-SOG monitors will still display the output reasonably well, but with a greenish tint.
Let's be clear. The O2 outputs standard H/V sync on the VGA connector. In addition, it provides sync on the green signal. Actually, according to the man pages for setmon, the O2 puts out sync signals on the red and blue lines as well!
techpubs.sgi.com wrote:
6. On systems with CRM or IMPACT graphics, sync appears on the red,
green and blue signals. The -s option does not affect the sync
signals on these systems.
green and blue signals. The -s option does not affect the sync
signals on these systems.
Many non-SOG monitors will display the output perfectly . Some will display with tint problems.
eMGee wrote:
I luckily never felt ‘sorry’ for anyone not having to use Windoze.
Ha!
hamei wrote:
dc, you're letting the grey cells rewrite history.
Perhaps a little bit, but I distinctly recall feeling that it must've made their lives difficult. Secretaries are not technical people. Lose 95 was probably just released. In any event, I'm sure Office was out in some form, and thought both Word and PowerPoint were superior, sorry. What I don't remember is how you might have even sent a presentation to someone back then - don't think there was pdf yet? Showcase files don't seem to be that portable. PowerPoint was more ubiquitous.
Agree that Win2K was the first good MS OS, but Office was a good product earlier. Any good new features since '97?
josehill wrote:
Anyone else remember applying adhesive lettering to photos by hand, placing the photos (or laser printer output) on a light table, and then taking pictures of the work for slide output?
I remember affixing the Polaroids that every scientific instrument used to capture images (microscope, SEM, interferometer) to papers and scanning them or photocopying them.
Great Acrobat info, thanks.
josehill wrote:
It's interesting that you remarked about Office 97.....we stayed on Office 97 globally until its end-of-support in 2004...... I only recall two occasions where Office 97 didn't handle features from a newer release.
I probably used 97 just as long. Then 2000 until a year or two ago.....when I finally upgraded to 2003. What was I missing? I think '97 might have had some issue with long filenames or something, but I don't recall anything significant with anything newer. Can't stand looking at 2007. O'97 and Win2K (used @ home until 2007 - it's still running a few machines at the office) were the two best products MS ever made. XP isn't bad - but I didn't even run it at home until 6 years after it was released! We waited a few years at the office, too.
The compatibility you mentioned with O'97 was a problem for MS. It was too good. People weren't upgrading. That's why they came out with the docx BS in 07. They need people to have issues with their software so they want to upgrade. But how much further can you advance the word processor?
Let us know if there's anything good about O2010!
I think I got started with Lotus Symphony! Anyone else use it? Beautiful integrated text mode glory!
Really wanted Ami Pro when it came out, but never got a chance to use it.
Also, josehill, while I agree that the PowerPoint culture wasn't as prevasive before projectors, overheads were common (reason for the Presenter display!) and some people did like to do a better job than a marker pen. Needed to physically print the transparencies - now no one cares anymore. I think I first used a program called SlideWrite, and wish I had HG.
That was kind of my point - I don't think there was anything major through 2003. Maybe Office XP was some kind of outlier? Skipped that one. I think most of the changes in Office were actually in Outlook through 03.
You can feel safe going all the way up to 03, aj.
Really wanted Ami Pro when it came out, but never got a chance to use it.
Also, josehill, while I agree that the PowerPoint culture wasn't as prevasive before projectors, overheads were common (reason for the Presenter display!) and some people did like to do a better job than a marker pen. Needed to physically print the transparencies - now no one cares anymore. I think I first used a program called SlideWrite, and wish I had HG.
ajerimez wrote:
I stuck with Office 97 until last year, when I finally switched to Office 2000 (and only because it supported the newer DocX format). I was pleased to discover that Office 2000 looks and feels almost exactly like Office 97 - at least Microsoft knew not to mess with a good thing in that case.
That was kind of my point - I don't think there was anything major through 2003. Maybe Office XP was some kind of outlier? Skipped that one. I think most of the changes in Office were actually in Outlook through 03.
You can feel safe going all the way up to 03, aj.
R-ten-K wrote:
But the focus I think at that time was more in the generation of charts/graphs than in the production of automated slide shows. I think in the late 80s and early 90s a 3D pie chart with more than 3 colors was still something that caused awe among audiences.
"automated" slide show = hand removes transparency from binder, switches transparency with one on overhead, returns original to binder....
By the mid '90s I think it was common to use presentation packages to make bulleted or otherwise text slides as well as charts and graphs - at least I did, maybe even earlier.
R-ten-K wrote:
What I despise out of the whole powerpoint culture is that it really limits the way information is presented and exposed.
To some extent, that's true. OTOH, it helps get some people to document work - and that might otherwise not happen. The number of engineers who don't know how to use PowerPoint shocks me, and is only slightly less of a problem than those that won't - "Oh, I don't need to make any slides, I'm just going to hold the design review with the client via WebEx (or in person), pull up the CAD, and go over it directly with them". You know what happens if you let them get away with that, right? Client doesn't remember anything. Expectations magically aren't met. He said/she said.....
As per your other point, the only reason a Word file should ever be attached to an email is if its being sent to someone off-site for editing! If not, pdf! Those BS 20MB Word docs often print down to a half meg pdf.
maxsleg wrote:
He is not even close - The Computer History Museum in Mountain View is something else.
Not to derail another thread, but - is it really? Maybe it's improved recently? I visited maybe 6-10 years ago and wasn't too impressed. Better than the one in Boston, though (now closed). The only thing I remember about the latter was they had a cool original Mac prototype, complete with wire-wrapped circuit boards! Would've thought maybe I'd be blown away by some DEC gear, given location.
R-ten-K wrote:
The main reason for those files, is that those are "live" documents. People have to make changes and revisions. I think office is the spawn of the devil, because they focus on shitty incremental useless changes (I mean how many times do they have to move the items in the menu around?). While the real stuff they should be working on: centralized document repositories, for real time, organization-wide updates, and truly "transparent" collaborative workflows are such an afterthought. That people end up doing it the brute force way: via mass e-mail of attachments.
But how many of them are off-site? I agree that revision and document control systems would be a much better use of MS time. But if the email thing is working, it shows that the folks doing the work don't really _need_ the fancy stuff, and simply keeping the damn document on a network drive is a much better use of resources than emailing the thing around. If at all possible, I now tell them it's too big for my inbox, I must have more crap than they do. I respond with emails containing links to the file "file:///P:/1020-15/Blah.xls" that they can click on if it's beyond their capabilities to find it on the network.
And actually I'm somewhat glad MS focused on "shitty incremental useless changes" - that's why I had no problem using anything from O'97 through O'2003, it's the same damn program. I refused to use 2007 because I didn't want to have to deal with whatever screw up they made to it.
bri3d wrote:
hamei wrote:
I never use the indicators. It draws too much attention.
This reminds me of quite possibly the best post ever on a driving forum:
"Why would I use turn signals? You have to take the Americans by surprise!"
I generally do try to use turn signals, but unfortunately the general rule of thumb is that Boston drivers will see your signal and speed up to close the gap to prevent you from moving over. I move over anyway.
The best drivers I've actually ever seen were in Sweden. People there are amazing. All highways are generally two-lane, one in each direction. But they are very wide with large, well paved, clean shoulders. The general practice is that drivers being passed will pull to the right and drive on the shoulder to allow the passing car to only go halfway over the line - this makes it safer if oncoming cars approach. People seem to pass even in corners for this reason. The problem was, I don't like to make people drive on the shoulder, so I speed up a little to get past them sooner. The next car in front then sees me, pulls onto shoulder. Well, he's even farther ahead, so I speed up even more. Next car does the same thing. These guys are not that close together, so the next thing you know, I'm driving something like 180 km/hr (I think the official limit was 100 or 120) and the car 1 km up the road from me is already pulling over onto the shoulder! I realize enough is enough, slow back down, and the car in front eventually moves back into the lane after a few minutes of shoulder driving.
maxsleg wrote:
Wandering around Chilliwack today (a town in BC) where I came across a 2nd hand bookshop where I found a copy of 'The Soul of a New Machine' by Tracy Kidder....Something to read on the remainder of my holiday
I liked it. Not quite sure it was something that should've won a Pulitzer, but hey.
R-ten-K wrote:
Jobs, as much of an insane narcissistic megalomaniac he may be, understood that the key for his company to thrive was to focus on margins. Thus he can't compete with the same value propositions from the wintel generic boxes which are based around wafer thin margins. I guess the strategy for apple is that if you want customization: go to Windows or better yet go to Linux/BSD which are as customizable as it gets. If you want a well integrated, designer box which is intuitive and gets out of the way/just works out of the box then go to Apple.
Wasn't that SGI's strategy?
<ducks>
recondas wrote:
hamei wrote:
Hmm. We should research this. I don't get stuff all that often but it's been simple. I wonder if there's a declared value setting or something that kicks the process into pita ?
I think it's just the PO's interpretation of international treaties regulating imports. I just sent a package to an
American APO
address in Europe - even though APO addresses get domestic postal rates, a long-form customs declaration is required <regardless of the value of the contents>.
Must depend a bit on the physical size of the package? I just sent a small package to a DPO (same thing as APO) and they didn't ask for anything. The recipient was adamant that I not put the destination country anywhere on the address or package or the PO would screw it up. Were the customs forms country specific?
theinonen wrote:
I have never used Autocad for 3D-stuff or really done any 3D-CAD work, so can not comment on that. I would use 2D-CAD (or drafting app, as dc_v01 would say) for drawing something like that.
Ha! You're learning!
What's missing from this discussion of CAD vs. 3D modeling software is an appreciation of surfaces, and another class of CAD software. The 3D CAD software hamei is bringing up - Pro/E, CATIA, SolidWorks, etc. are parametric CAD programs. They are particularly excellent at modeling prismatic or rectilinear objects, with cylindrical surfaces thrown in for good measure. Just about everything is established through driving dimensions - and you can parametrically define different parts of the same family through tables of dimension values. The history of the modeling process is also preserved, and you can go back and make changes to earlier decisions.
However, this approach pretty much universally sucks at modeling freeform surfaces. Not that you can't, but it's usually painful. This is where Maya, Blender, etc. come into play. Come in, grab the vertices on the mesh directly, push them around until it looks right to the artistic eye. Not impossible to do on the other programs but you generally don't want to try. The 3D modeling software has staked out this ground, and they excel at freeform surfaces.
There is another class of CAD software, however - explicit modelers. These did not have parametric capability, do not preserve history. ME10 might be historically the most famous, and this was also the wasy AutoCAD/(maybe Inventor?) worked (OMG I wouldn't want to use those). They don't have all the power of the parametric modelers, but they don't have the restrictions, either, and they're generally much better at surface modeling. They're better than "3D modelers" at solid modeling, preserving more of the "CAD" approach. I believe ME10 (which was originally HP) then morphed into a product called CoCreate. PTC - PARAMETRIC Technology Corporation, the makers of Pro/E - recently bought CoCreate and appear to be pushing it quite heavily - even into areas that I'd think would want to be parametric. For those that are interested in this kind of software, they have free personal (evaluation?) licenses/downloads (for Windows) on their website. I haven't tried this, but I think they're pretty close to fully functional, little or no limitations.
This might be a good oportunity to compare your favorite 3D modeler with a CAD program, although I think you'd miss a lot of the power of parametric modeling. PTC seems like they were adding a lot of traditional parametric capabilities to CoCreate, but I don't really know the details.
hamei wrote:
Get BRL for free, it's the same crappy 'stick anything anywhere" system
Yeah, uh, no, despite have never used CoCreate, I have touched BRL, so I'm fairly certain Co will spank it all over the place.
hamei wrote:
I'm still surprised that there is no good CAD program for Linux.
aj pointed out the "3d modeling" software. You're right about CAD area. Pro/E Wildfire used to be available for Linux, but PTC dropped support for it??? I would've thought some engineering types would love the power of Unix style command line scripting...
maxleg wrote: In fact, in general the Airbus family suck. The A340s used on the Munich => SFO root are horrible.
I haven't personally noted an issue with the A340 (Liked premium economy on Thai), but a colleague hates the 340 compared to the 747 for long haul flights simply because the cruising speed is so much slower, the flights are often an hour longer. Not sure about the 777.
maxleg wrote: Worst flights have be internal flights in Russia and Vietnam....I'm sure glad that I only have to go to US and Japan now
I'm not sure I could bring myself to set foot on a Russian airliner - I'm not "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going", but those are at another level.
I was once worried about taking a domestic Thai airways flight, Chiang Mai to Bangkok. What kind of plane would they have for a 1:10 minute flight? Needn't have worried - they used a 747. Took off and climbed to altitude almost vertically, enough cruising time for meal service. That's efficiency!
I actually really love flying Dash-8/similar small aircraft, if I can get a window. The view is spectacular by comparison, and if it's not, likely the weather is making things an interesting roller coaster of a flight.
R-ten-K wrote: I have flown both the 340 and 747-400s plenty of times in similar routes and I honestly did not notice much flight time differences in the same leg of the trip. Given that both planes have fairly close cruising speeds (the 747 is faster by 0.2 mach at best) maybe it is a placebo effect more than anything?
Quite possibly, but the person is question is an aeronautical engineer who I think tends to be quite pendantic about this stuff. My own little google search right now suggests it may be closer to .03 Mach (.85 vs .82) which over the last A340 flight I took (17 Hours) I could imagine shaving an hour off of, but maybe not on much shorter routes. As BigD noted, a lot comes down to the airlines, and I would think climbing performance may have as great an effect.
R-ten-K wrote: As some people pointed out, the difference in comfort simply comes down to airline configuration and their staff. To me there is far more difference between airlines, than the planes themselves. I tend to avoid American carriers for international flights as much as possible.
American carriers operate on the seniority system, and long international flights are the most desirable work. So you will have the most senior flight attendants on those flights. If you like the service of the PYT on Singapore Air, you will never find them on American international flights - more likely a pudddle jumper. OTOH, there are some other issues at stake...
R-ten-K wrote: I have also noted a clear correlation between amount of booze I can get during the flight and the positive performance of the plane
Ha! I actually can't stay awake on a flight anymore to save my life, assuming I can get a seat with enough space to get comfortable (at least a premium economy seat). The droning of the engines just puts me to sleep. Haven't seen a movie on a plane in years.
theinonen wrote:dc_v01 wrote: I'm not sure I could bring myself to set foot on a Russian airliner - I'm not "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going", but those are at another level.
Why is that?
Russian stuff is actually very reliable. Maybe not the best looking, or the most comfortable but they work regardless of weather or other conditions.
I think in general the Russian design approaches are often better than those in the "west". But anecdotally (what I see on the news), Tupolevs seem to crash at a disturbing rate (especially since I believe Boeing and Airbus have far larger worldwide market share - I don't think TUs were sold much outside of former Soviet bloc countries). Many/Most airline tragedies are due more to human error, not the plane, and Malcolm Gladwell has an interesting section on this in his book Outliers - "The Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes". Your worst case scenario is to be on a plane where the captain is in control and the staff has a particular cultural background. My impression has been that some of TU accidents are more hardware based, and they may be combined with cultures that aren't helpful for safety in this respect.