Friday, July 29, 2005

Magic Quotes and Add Slashes in PHP - Tutorials - Webmaster Stop

Magic Quotes and Add Slashes in PHP - Tutorials - Webmaster Stop: "
function myAddSlashes( $string ) {

if (get_magic_quotes_gpc()==1) {

return ( $string );

} else {

return ( addslashes ( $string ) );

}

}

?>"

Microsoft Windows Vista

Microsoft Windows Vista

Windows Vista Beta Is On

Windows Vista Beta Is On

PEAR :: Manual :: Including Code

PEAR :: Manual :: Including Code: "Including Code

Anywhere you are unconditionally including a class file, use require_once. Anywhere you are conditionally including a class file (for example, factory methods), use include_once. Either of these will ensure that class files are included only once. They share the same file list, so you don't need to worry about mixing them - a file included with require_once will not be included again by include_once.

Note: include_once and require_once are statements, not functions. Parentheses should not surround the subject filename."

Thursday, July 28, 2005

News On F1 - Ayrton Senna vs. Michael Schumacher - The Debate - Page 6

Hello! Well, there were a lot of points to answer, so I hope you guys like reading! :-D
This is really for everyone, but especially for Ryan T, if he's still around!
“…The wrong/ manufactured claim was mainly from Paul D of Scotland…” Sorry, Ryan, but I have read over my last mail and I cannot spot ANYTHING in it that is “wrong” or “manufactured”. By the way, I have not accused YOU of fabrications or distortions despite disagreeing with many of the things that YOU say – if you ever read this and reply then please return the compliment. Anyway. I said that Benetton would have won without Schuie because it’s TRUE – e.g. Johnnie Herbert winning at Silverstone AND Monza in 1995 (in both instances Schumacher was out – for the significance of this, see below). I said that Benetton won AFTER Schuie left because it’s TRUE – e.g. Gerhard Berger at Hockenheim. I said that Lotus did NOT win after Senna left because it’s TRUE – he scored their LAST EVER victory. The number of points Benetton reaped after 1995 DID decline dramatically – but they would have anyway, with the overpowering strength of the 1996 and 1997 Williams…I bet even Ayrton Senna himself couldn’t have used a Benetton to beat the Williams to the title in those years! :-D
“…Didn't they have the money at that time? Weren't they capable?? “ You seem to have misunderstood the point I was making about mega-rich teams. ESPECIALLY where you wrote “…McLaren would have had a bigger budget than Benetton (correct me if I am wrong, that’s my one assumption). So, using your own argument about budgets as well, Senna had a better car than Schumacher…” No, I am NOT saying that the quality of a car increases directly with the amount of dollars available. That would be facile. My point was that the mega-rich teams that Schumacher has ALWAYS driven for never had to make do with a sub-standard package of engines, tyres, personnel etc. to the extent that Senna did when he drove for Lotus. This means that Senna’s achievements at Lotus, in a relatively poor car (because the team did not have the assets to make a better one relative to the competition at the time) were NEVER mirrored by Schumacher, who has ALWAYS driven for a team with much better resources. THIS means that I am more impressed with what Senna achieved before he won championships than I am with what Schuie achieved before he won his own.
No, Ryan, I am NOT saying that McLaren was poor. Ferrari and McLaren were both stable, rich teams. But Schumacher could only join one or the other, couldn’t he? He chose Ferrari, but HAD he joined McLaren, it would NOT have disproved my point, and it would NOT have implied that I thought that Ferrari had no resources.
You asked “…how come Ferrari didn’t win a Driver’s Championship since 1979 until Schumacher did it…” (Well, they’d have won it sooner than they did, as early as 1999, had Irvine NOT been required to submit track position to Schumacher earlier that year, to the detriment of his own point’s total). Anyway, that is an ENORMOUS question, and any answer would require amongst other things a complete regurgitation of the key events, deals and developments of all the championships from 1979 to 2000. Shorthand is - SOMEBODY was going to win the title back for Ferrari eventually, given the team’s resources. Had he been equal priority, EDDIE IRVINE could have taken it (see above). Also, it was NOT ONLY the arrival of Schumacher that changed the team’s fortunes; the revival of Ferrari was an ENORMOUS project, initiated and ‘sold’ to the sponsors, management and so on LONG BEFORE Schumacher signed for them, and which would have occurred anyway without him. The arrival of Todt, Brawn, Stepney and Byrne (and many others), revised sponsorship and investment levels, revised team-orders and even a new attitude (“There’s no point being fast if you don’t finish”) also helped turn things around. However, all this really doesn’t stick to the point of our debate, which is “Who’s Better – Senna or Schuie?”
“…Also, if Byrne & Brawn’s Technical interpretations are not correct, the authorities would have dealt with it...” Well, that is as great a display of blind faith in the sport’s decision-makers as I have ever seen. You only have to have seen the unpunished scandals of illegal barge-boards, de facto traction control, photographs strongly suggestive of banned differential braking systems, the controversy over flexible floors and rear wings, Michael Schumacher’s lead-weighted crash helmet that he took to an official weigh-in (depressing but true), and Benetton’s use of an unapproved fuel filter (that THEY said would actually SLOW refuelling down, but which reliable sources have stated would SPEED UP pit-stops by about a second). This second may not sound like much until you remember the pit-stop in Brazil, ’94, when Senna entered the pits AHEAD of Schuie – and left the pits BEHIND him…somehow!...There are many others, but most of these scandals and infringements have NOT been punished, despite having been either corrected or even being allowed to creep into the sport, to the EXTREMELY vigorous protests of fans, commentators and drivers alike. (Incidentally, as further demonstration of the advantage of having Ferrari putting most of their resources into one driver, look at the end of the 1999 season. After Schumacher crashed at Silverstone, Eddie Irvine became Ferrari’s championship hope, and, boy, Irvine’s points-per-race average fairly SOARED!...He was winning THIS, he was winning THAT…even taking into consideration Mika Salo’s self-sacrificing help, the man was somehow…mystically…REBORN! All of a sudden, the form of the Ferrari No.2 and underdog literally SKY-ROCKETED, to the point that he clawed back so much ground and reaped so many points that he was challenging Mika Hakkinen for the title by the last race of the season that year!)
In response to “…Why can’t you speak about ’92 ??.. I agree with you that Senna & Schumacher were not in comparable cars. Senna was in the car that won the Drivers Championship for the four years prior to that..” my reply is: because at the time of writing I was not immediately and intimately familiar with the results of that season, and the reasons for them. I was unprepared for someone to attach such huge significance to that one year, to the only complete racing year in Schumacher’s and Senna’s overlapped lives where Schumacher, for SOME REASON, scored more points. However, because this seems to be such a pivotal issue with you, I have decided to look into the 1992 season – here are my findings: The first thing I learned - and it was a strongly-recurring theme – was that at the start of 1992 the McLaren car was NOT by ANY MEANS up to the relative standards of previous years. In fact, by around half-way through the *1991* season McLaren were losing serious ground, and Senna took the title that year thanks to the amount of points he’d gained at the START of the season, when Williams were still trying to improve their package. This, Ryan, I hope will finally put the last nail into the coffin of your frankly EXASPERATING habit of insisting that a team that won championships in previous years must always logically still be front-runners the year after (or even SEVERAL years after!). Anyway. For various reasons, in 1992, Schumacher retired *4* times. My sources inform me that he scored 53 points that season. So far so good. Now, Ayrton Senna retired for various reasons *7* times, and scored 50 points. How badly did the different rate of fail-to-finishes affect the result? Well…looking only at races that they finished, Schumacher earned an average *4.8* points per race. Which is pretty decent. Ayrton Senna scored an average *6.25* points per race. This means that Ayrton Senna, rather more often than not, finished in a higher position when he finished a race than Schumacher did when HE finished a race. The inevitable conclusion, then, is that it was MACHINERY (*NOT skill*) that let Senna down. This means that in 1992, he retired on THREE more occasions than Schumacher. and yet finished only *3 points* behind him, in a season where, when he DID finish, he scored on average *6 points* per race. That really says it all. Given equally reliable machinery, Senna would have WHIPPED Schumacher. Further proof that when Senna finished he tended to BEAT Schumacher pretty convincingly can be seen in their tally of wins that year – Senna, *3*; Schumacher, *1*. I’m not taking anything away from Schumacher’s performance in 1992. He proved himself to be a bright new talent. Really impressive, beautiful. All I’m saying is that, adjusting for retirements, he just didn’t do as well as Senna, that’s all.
Incidentally, here you say “…Couple that with the fact that he had 8 years’ experience against Schumacher’s six races, Senna should have beaten Schumacher hands down...” Whereas HERE, you say: “…There are other factors such as the Chassis that could make a big difference…” And, even more damning: “…Statistics don’t say the whole truth, but longer the period (or larger the sample) the greater the accuracy. 10 – 13 years (160-200 starts) should give a fare result…” Oh? So you AGREE that the results over one year (16 starts) don’t give a representative result? So you AGREE that, say, 1992 on its own isn’t enough? OK, then how about we compare the race performances of EVERY race that the two men appeared in together? It’s easily done, and it would only be fair! Representing the results of 41 races, it is the biggest sample of comparative data possible for this discussion. Here are the results, pinched from PlanetF1’s superb archive…
Head to Head Race Results:
(Schumacher is on the left, Senna is on the right).
Won 5 10
Finished Higher 17 20
when both finished 7 10
Retirements 14 14
(Incidentally, this table DOESN’T display the fact that Michael Schumacher never achieved a single pole position while Ayrton Senna was alive).
Ryan, what I hear from you is “..Schuie got higher numbers in 1992, Schuie got higher numbers in 1992…” over and over. Don’t be fooled by the bigger numbers from that one year, Ryan. If it’s JUST THE POINTS IN THAT ONE YEAR that matter - Patrese scored *56* points that season, which is more than either of them. So Ricardo Patrese was a better driver than Senna AND Schuie, right?...(Nope!)
”Tell me, what’s so good about “THE Alain Prost” compared to Hakkinen , Montoya or Raikkonen ??” I swear, Ryan, this is your finest yet! MUSEUM quality! Here are a few important pointers… Senna: Got NO sacrificial help from team-mate in all his Championship years.
Schumacher: Got CONSTANT sacrificial help from team-mate in all his Championship years. Senna: Beat Prost, who’d achieved many victories, and multiple championships.
Schumacher: Beat Montoya and Raikkonen at first when they were novices in different teams from him in years when he had a strong car and, later, beat them when they were more clued-up about Formula One when he had the DOMINANT car.
Senna: Beat Prost, a tremendously strong-running veteran of the sport, in an EQUAL car. Schumacher: Has NEVER beaten champion material in their prime in an equal car. POSITIVELY DEMANDS relatively mediocre team-mates, who must always take a subservient role. Schuie, recently, has beaten **Eddie Irvine** and **Rubens Barrichello** in equal cars (with UNequal team orders). Looking further back to his Benetton championship years, in an equal car he beat Johnnie Herbert (who was really never the same after the accident early in his promising career that smashed his feet to bits), Martin Brundle (a good man and solid driver but, sadly, never a race-winner), Ricardo Patrese (a former race winner but WELL past his prime when he - ahem! - ‘raced’ with Schumacher) and Jos Verstappen. Oooh! ‘Jos the boss!’ I’ll let others pick apart the rest of your argument, Ryan. I could type about the differences between Senna beating Prost and Schuie beating those other chaps all day.
Also, you said: “…You say that in ’94 Senna’s car was “Difficult” quoting Frank Williams. Paul you are the one saying that Senna was good & won in these sort of cars…” Yes, given time, mate! Fair play, even in that tricky car he got 3 pole positions out of 3. He was CRASHED INTO once, spun on another occasion whilst trying to catch what I and many, MANY others have always thought was a VERY SUSPICIOUSLY nimble Benetton, and lastly suffered a fatal accident whilst leading a race. Senna would have won eventually that year – even Alain Prost said that Senna could maybe have even beaten Prost’s record of 51 race wins in 1994, had he lived (Senna had 41 at the start of that year). No-one could possibly pretend that the outcome of those 3 races were anywhere NEAR representative of Senna’s actual talents (or Schuie’s, for that matter). Then you said: “…How come Hill managed to push Schumacher to the limit in the same car ??...” Where you yet again return to your INFURIATING tendency to imply that cars cannot be developed or improved throughout the course of a year. Well, the ’94 Williams WAS developed and improved throughout the year. So too, I presume, was the Benetton, but Williams seem to have clawed back more ground. Get this into your head – **THE WILLIAMS CAR AT THE END OF THE SEASON WAS OF GREATER QUALITY THAN THE CAR THAT STARTED IT**!! As a matter of fact, it was so good that in order to win that year, Schuie only managed it by intentionally ramming Hill, just because he'd knackered his own suspension and knew he was going to lose the championship by his own mistake. I say again, Schumacher had to punt Hill off, after Schuie had damaged his own car by hitting a wall seconds before, as the result of his own error! How can ANYONE who wants to talk about Schuie’s skill refer to the ’94 Championship, the world-renowned PINNACLE of underhand, spiteful skullduggery and foul play, without cringing with embarrassment for the man?
Incidentally, I presume that the apparently tasteless comment ”…As for Williams cleaning the floor with Benetton : with due respect, Senna should have kept his car on the track in the first place. THREE IN A ROW in the best car is not good at all...” was unintended. Having been raised to have regard for folk and to give them the benefit of the doubt I will assume that you were NOT talking about Senna’s retirements when you stridently declare “…THREE IN A ROW in the best car is not good at all…” The reason being that not only was one of those retirements caused by someone else shunting him off, but also that another one actually resulted in a horrifying fatal accident that Senna, whilst negotiating an easy turn, for some reason could not avoid. So I presume in your defence that you are NOT implying, in ghastly terms, that Senna was so prone to lapses of judgement and skill as to be routinely incapable of keeping a car on a track. So you must have been talking about pole positions. That MUST be it, because the alternative “THREE IN A ROW” would be ghoulish. You must have meant “Three pole positions in a row in the fastest car is not an impressive performance,” but even so I remind you that Frank Williams himself said that the car at the start of the year was a difficult one, so either way you look at it, with that statement of yours, you are missing the point.
Also you said “…George from Greece: Firstly, please read my comments on Lotus again & try to comprehend – or ask someone else to explain it to you… “ You don’t need to patronize George as he made the same perfectly reasonable interpretation of your statement (about a team apparently having to be good in one decade after having won a championship in a previous decade) as I did.
“…On the subject of Contracts & Team mates, although I don’t think it is sporty, you can’t blame Schumacher for it…” Well, actually, Ryan T. from Sri Lanka, yes, we can! Schumacher’s “ME!-ME!-ME!” attitude has cheapened the sport for millions of fans and obscured his true level of skill. I actually really rooted for Schumacher when he was trying to beat Hakkinen, whom I saw as the dullest man in the world. But it was obvious even then that there were some serious questions to ask about Michael Schumacher. Eventually, I lost all respect for him in Austria 2002 when he took the win from Rubens, the guy who’d been on pole, and who’d led the entire race until the last few meters. Schumacher, with 10 points won as a direct result of his own demands, lacked the moral courage to even stand on the top of the podium while his country’s National Anthem played. He was getting jeered and booed by about 100,000 people anyway, why didn’t he just take his lumps? If he was doing something he could justify, and doing the right thing, why was he so humiliated?
“…Wonder what would have happened if Senna was the man at McLaren & Prost wanted to join ?...” Frankly, I think that after 1988 Senna wouldn’t have minded. Senna could beat Prost. That’s why Prost FORBADE Senna to join him at Williams when Prost joined them in 1993. (Just like Piquet vetoed Senna a few years earlier). Senna wanted to join Williams for 1993 as well, but was vetoed. He would have loved to drive against Prost, because Senna knew Senna was better.
Finally, in response to “…Team mates helping the No.1 driver has always been there. I don’t like it but that’s there to stay. The mistake Ferrari made was that they were open about it. However, you can hand pick the number of times Schumacher got help from his Team Mate. Most of the time his mate was behind his competitors…” Yes, team orders have always been a feature of F1, BUT NOT TO THE SPORT-DESTROYING, CONTEMPT-INDUCING EXTENT THAT SCHUMACHER DEMANDS. It is THIS more than anything else that cheapens Schumacher’s currency. And have you considered how much the-team-mate-usually-being-behind-him is INEVITABLE, given the difference in the way they are treated as the result of his own demands? How much of it is down to preferential budget allocation, testing time (remember when Schuie was given his 2002 (or was it 2003?) Ferrari before Rubens got his?) imbalanced resources and technical personnel (…ever noticed how many car failures Rubens suffers compared to Schumacher?...). Ever noticed how in the 12-lap qualifying, Irvine or Rubens would routinely be sent out first, to assess the properties of the track and let Schuie view the telemetry TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THEIR OWN QUALIFYING POSITION. And remember how in the race Irvine would bunch the pack up and make overtaking difficult while Schumacher romped away?...The list goes on…
**Here is an open plea to team Ferrari – you are rich enough and strong enough to be able to run two Championship contenders, which has ALWAYS been the desire of the millions of fans who are the financial bedrock of Formula One. Millions of folk say that Senna vs. Prost at McLaren were among the greatest years of the sport. By now you must surely understand why NO-ONE likes to hear the words “…and Barrichello is in the lead, so that’s another 10 points for Michael Schumacher…!...” Ferrari, drop this attitude of putting all your eggs in one basket, give your team-members equal priority, with one of them eventually beating the other SOLELY ON MERIT like all of the other big teams and let’s go ‘RACING’ again!**
The logic is circular, and very, very tired. “Schumacher gets preferential treatment because he’s the Championship hope. And he’s the Championship hope because he gets preferential treatment.” Where does one cross the line, when does one change into the other? Regards all, Paul D - Scotland

News On F1 - Ayrton Senna vs. Michael Schumacher - The Debate - Page 6

News On F1 - Ayrton Senna vs. Michael Schumacher - The Debate - Page 6

Bimmerforums - The Ultimate BMW Forum - Video: VS motors E34 M5 turbo, 8.83sec@quartermile

Bimmerforums - The Ultimate BMW Forum - Video: VS motors E34 M5 turbo, 8.83sec@quartermile

Ferrari Chick drives the snot out of Ferrari 360

Ferrari Chick drives the snot out of Ferrari 360

ScanPlanet.com - Auto ID Products, Barcode Scanners, 2D Part Scanners, RVSI, HHP, Microscan, Hand Held Products, Symbol Barcode Scanners, Symbol scann

ScanPlanet.com - Auto ID Products, Barcode Scanners, 2D Part Scanners, RVSI, HHP, Microscan, Hand Held Products, Symbol Barcode Scanners, Symbol scanners, Zebra, Zebra Printers, PSC Scanners, Intermec, barcode printers, Code CR2 Scanners, Cisco Wireless lans, Industrial Pocket PC, Pocket PC Scanners, Bluetooth Scanners, Mobile computers, Xplore ix104 Rugged Tablet PC, Itronix, Barcode Data Collection, label applicators

David Korn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Korn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Korn shell and Microsoft

Due to Korn shell being one of the more popular shells written for the UNIX Operating System, Microsoft decided to include a version of it produced by Mortice Kern Systems in a UNIX integration package for Windows NT. This version was not compatible with ksh88 (a Korn shell specification), and Korn mentioned this during a question and answer period of a Microsoft presentation during a USENIX NT conference in Seattle in 1997. Greg Sullivan, a Microsoft product manager who was participating in the presentation, not knowing who the commenter was, insisted that Microsoft had indeed chosen a 'real' Korn shell. A polite debate ensued, with Sullivan continuing to insist that the man giving the criticisms was mistaken about the compatibility issues. Sullivan only backed down when an audience member stood up and mentioned that the man making the comments was David Korn."

MySQL Reference Manual :: 15.1 InnoDB Overview

MySQL Reference Manual :: 15.1 InnoDB Overview: "InnoDB is used in production at numerous large database sites requiring high performance. The famous Internet news site Slashdot.org runs on InnoDB. Mytrix, Inc. stores over 1TB of data in InnoDB, and another site handles an average load of 800 inserts/updates per second in InnoDB."

Visual Basic / MySQL Datatypes

Visual Basic / MySQL Datatypes

VB/MySQL.com - Welcome!

VB/MySQL.com - Welcome!

National P/N LP3970 - Power Management Unit for Advanced Application Processors

National P/N LP3970 - Power Management Unit for Advanced Application Processors

Pixelgirl Presents Free Icons, Desktops and Gallery Shop!

Pixelgirl Presents Free Icons, Desktops and Gallery Shop!

The uIP TCP/IP Stack for Embedded Microcontrollers

The uIP TCP/IP Stack for Embedded Microcontrollers

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Office Depot BenQ 19" LCD Monitor $146 AR at ResellerRatings.com Hot Deals

Office Depot BenQ 19" LCD Monitor $146 AR at ResellerRatings.com Hot Deals

The Linux Virtual Server Project - Linux Server Cluster for Load Balancing

The Linux Virtual Server Project - Linux Server Cluster for Load Balancing

vb-components.com

vb-components.com

vbAccelerator - SSubTimer - ASM Thunk Version

vbAccelerator - SSubTimer - ASM Thunk Version

Xtreme Visual Basic Talk - Frequently asked Interface Design questions

Xtreme Visual Basic Talk - Frequently asked Interface Design questions

Xtreme Visual Basic Talk - 'Docking' a form?

Xtreme Visual Basic Talk - 'Docking' a form?

United Micro - Products

United Micro

Power, Power Management, LDO, Low Dropout Voltage, Power Supply, References, Regulator, Simple Switcher, Lighting, Mobile Phones, Cell Phones, Battery

Power, Power Management, LDO, Low Dropout Voltage, Power Supply, References, Regulator, Simple Switcher, Lighting, Mobile Phones, Cell Phones, Battery Charger, White LED, Capacitor

Hcs12 ActiveX Control

Hcs12 ActiveX Control

Hacked $99 NAS gadget runs full Debian Linux

Hacked $99 NAS gadget runs full Debian Linux

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21 - C++

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21 - C++

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Digi-Key Corporation -- Part Search

Digi-Key Corporation -- Part Search: "Digi-Key Part Number 296-13424-1-ND
Price Break
1
25
100
250

500
Unit Price
0.56000
0.42000
0.31500
0.23240
0.19600 Price
0.56
10.50
31.50
58.10
98.00
Manufacturer Part Number UA78M33CDCYR
Description IC POS VOLT REG FX 3.3V SOT223-4"

Digi-Key Corporation -- Part Search

Digi-Key Corporation -- Part Search

Google Moon - Lunar Landing Sites

Google Moon - Lunar Landing Sites

Google Search: yangzhou chengtuo

Google Search: yangzhou chengtuo

AMD: Evolution of an Innovator

AMD: Evolution of an Innovator: "1976

* AMD and Intel sign their first comprehensive cross-license agreement, where AMD and Intel both agree to license to each other all patents each company holds.


1982

* IBM selects an Intel microprocessor for its PC but only on the condition that there is a reliable second source supplier for its PC processor needs. As a result, AMD renews a comprehensive cross-license agreement with Intel and becomes IBM’s second-source manufacturer of the 8086 and 8088 microprocessors.



* A California judge later said that – by agreeing to be a second source for Intel, “AMD came to Intel’s help when the latter needed assistance in establishing [its microprocessor] architecture in the marketplace.” This move helped Intel to establish x86 as the dominant PC architecture.

1987

* Intel notifies AMD it is terminating the second source agreement, an aggressive move to prevent AMD from producing a 486-compatible microprocessor. This begins years of legal disputes between AMD and Intel, and limits customer choice to a single source for PC microprocessors for the next several years.

1990

* In late 1990, AMD releases the Am386 ® microprocessor family, based on Intel’s 80386. Sales of the Am386 are strong due to its exceptional performance.

1991

* In October 1991, Intel commenced a federal court action for copyright infringement. An arbitrator subsequently awarded AMD full rights to make and sell the Am386. The Supreme Court of California upheld this decision in 1994.

1993

* The Am486 ® microprocessor is introduced; it powers Compaq computers and thousands of other manufacturers’ PCs.

1994

* Intel and HP announce the development of a proprietary 64-bit microprocessor architecture (code-named “Merced” and eventually launched as “Itanium”), based on an entirely new instruction set called “IA-64,” which is incompatible with the millions of existing x86-based PCs and soft"

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

The Humidor Cluster

The Humidor Cluster

eBay item 5789263206 (Ends 20-Jul-05 14:15:15 BST) - Death Star Home Cinema Subwoofer

eBay item 5789263206 (Ends 20-Jul-05 14:15:15 BST) - Death Star Home Cinema Subwoofer

PCWorld.com - AMD's New Athlon 64 FX-57 Rocks on Games

PCWorld.com - AMD's New Athlon 64 FX-57 Rocks on Games: "We tested a reference system from AMD configured with the new chip; 1GB of DDR400 memory; a 10,000-rpm, 74GB Western Digital hard drive; an NVidia 6800 Ultra graphics card with 256MB of RAM; and Windows XP Professional. The unit earned a score of 116 on WorldBench 5, which ties for the second highest score on this benchmark with a previously tested AMD reference system using a 2.4-GHz dual-core Athlon 64 X2 4800+ chip (the rest of the configuration is identical). It also bested the 107 average score of two previously tested systems with the Athlon 64 FX-55, as well as the 102 score of a reference Intel system using the 64-bit 3.73-GHz Pentium Extreme Edition chip."

The EU's Assault on Intel

The EU's Assault on Intel

'All-out war' in Intel-AMD antitrust case | CNET News.com

'All-out war' in Intel-AMD antitrust case | CNET News.com

AMD case ‘could cost Intel billions’ - Sunday Times - Times Online

AMD case ‘could cost Intel billions’ - Sunday Times - Times Online

» Adsense inline with WordPress blog posts -- from the mind of Phord

» Adsense inline with WordPress blog posts -- from the mind of Phord

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Maximum Compression (lossless data compression software)

Maximum Compression (lossless data compression software)

M.J.Butcher Consulting - Embedded Web Server

M.J.Butcher Consulting - Embedded Web Server: "Welcome to the MJBC Embedded Web Server running on the Freescale MC9S12NE64 [64k FLASH / 8k SRAM /10/100M LAN].
This demo allows simple testing of the device controlling an LCD display and monitoring Emails on a POP3 server.

Check out the web cam showing the display and send a test Email to this address.
The Emails are checked every 2 minutes which means that you can see the Email counter incrementing within this period.
A new product called the VIPpanel : more details here will be available in the very near future allowing full control of the display over the Internet - and a lot more besides...

See Web Cam here [Note: To access the web cam your browser will use the TCP port 8080. If you find it doesn't work, it is probably that your firewall is blocking accesses to HTTP ports other than the basic port 80. In this case the fire wall can be configured to allow standard TCP access to both 80 and 8080, which will resolve the problem.]

Have fun!!


Some technical notes:
The operating system and TCP/IP stack allowing you to view this page and controlling the application is developed and maintained by us - that is the company M.J.Butcher Consulting. It is designed for maximum performance in a minimum footprint, especially for embedded applications where resources have to be tightly controlled. It is scalable and easily configurable to get as much out of the hardware as possible.
The test application which you see is operating on a 100MB/s Ethernet LAN and supports maintenance via UDP or TELNET and web page updates via FTP. It is controlling an LCD, which can also be controlled over the Internet and checks its mail at a POP3 server every 2 minutes. It also performs LAN / RS232 conversion functions using UDP with additional CRC-16 checking and handshaking to ensure robustness.
How big is the code? Well as I said it is very scalable and depends on exactly what is supported (how rich the ICMP support is for example). The application shown r"

Saturday, July 02, 2005

EE3376 Labs

EE3376 Labs

EE3376 LCD Demo

EE3376 LCD Demo: "The steps needed to send a command byte are similar.

1. The data byte we send to the LCD controller has the form: %00nnnnER. The first two bits are always zero (essentially ignored). The middle 4 bits 'nnnn' are either the 4-msb or 4-lsb nibble of the ASCII code - these are highlighted in the code below. The next bit 'E' (bit 1 of 0-7) is the enable bit; we set this to low when we first put the data into port K, then we set it to high to latch the data into the HD44780, and then low again. The last bit 'R' (bit 0) is the RS bit, which is 1 when we send data, or 0 when we send a command.
2. The ASCII code for 'S' is %01010011 (= $53), which is also the address of 'S' in the CG RAM/ROM. This is the data byte we will send to the CG RAM/ROM, and we must break it up into two writes: first the 4-msb nibble (%0101) and then the 4-lsb nibble (%0011).
3. Write the first byte containing the 4-msb nibble %0101, E=0, R=1 as: %00010101
4. We then set enable high, E=1, for > 230 nsec: %00010111
5. Then set enable low again, E-0, and wait for at least 46 usec: %00010101
6. We then send the next byte containing the 4-lsb nibble, E=0, R=1: %00001101
7. Then set the Enable bit high: %00001111
8. And then set Enable low again and wait for > 46 usec: %00001101.
9. The character 'S' should now be displayed on the LCD, and the cursor should have advanced to the next character. We then repeat the above steps for the next character to display."

EE3376 LCD

EE3376 LCD: "To write to the LCD with our HCS12 microcontroller, we have to communicate with the HD44780 controller so that it knows what characters we want to display and where we want to display them."

Samsung 2x40 - Part #: UC-40207-SLHT6-J

Samsung 2x40 - Part #: UC-40207-SLHT6-J

Mosh on Ubuntu with UFW firewall

Finally decided to give Mosh a spin due to some connection reliability issues at one location. Was glad to see it simply sits alongside SSH ...