UmbralRaptor changed the topic of #kspacademia to: https://gist.github.com/pdn4kd/164b9b85435d87afbec0c3a7e69d3e6d | Dogs are cats. Spiders are cat interferometers. | Космизм сегодня! | Document well, for tomorrow you may get mauled by a ネコバス. | <UmbralRaptor> … one of the other grad students just compared me to nomal O_o | <ferram4> I shall beat my problems to death with an engineer.
<Ellied>
I thought the BNC barrel someone made by putting two BNC-to-PL259 adapters on a PL259 barrel was bad enough
<soundnfury>
oh, hams do _that_ sort of thing all the time
<soundnfury>
we just don't usually recurse quite as hard as your example there
<soundnfury>
... I haven't actually switched on my radio in at least a couple of years. I should find the time to get back on the air, else I'll probably forget Morse
* Ellied
casually leaves a USB-C → USB-A → Thunderbolt II → HDMI → Ethernet → Token Ring → RS-485 → garden hose → Chinese 3-prong mains plug → XLR → LoggerPro analog plug adapter attached to one of the shitty macbooks we use for undergrad lab
<soundnfury>
what, no PCIe extender?
<soundnfury>
or CANbus?
<soundnfury>
or semaphore flags?
<soundnfury>
!wpn Ellied
* Qboid
gives Ellied a geodesic helicoid
<soundnfury>
oh wait I was thinking of modbus, not canbus
<Ellied>
probably needs IDE→SATA→IDE in there somewhere
<Ellied>
and GPIB
<soundnfury>
just as long as there's no Infiniband or other RDMA crap
<Ellied>
RDMA?
<soundnfury>
also, make sure to have two sections of Ethernet, one using DIX and the other using Novell framing
<soundnfury>
Ellied: Remote Direct Memory Access
<Ellied>
what's bad about it?
<Ellied>
so bad that it's unwelcome even in a crazy list of hopefully-nonexistent adapters
<soundnfury>
(a) it's a needlessly overcomplicated baroque performance hack with a security nightmare attachment
<soundnfury>
(b) I work for a company that makes Ethernet hardware
<soundnfury>
take your pick
e_14159- has joined #kspacademia
<Ellied>
my only present gripe with ethernet is that I hate the boxy flimsy RJ45 connectors, but infiniband ones look worse in basically every way
<kmath>
<johnregehr> exponential pdf, I guess someone was teaching students about the dangers of using MS Word? https://t.co/LlTCacB3cV
e_14159 has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
e_14159- is now known as e_14159
<soundnfury>
Ellied: then get you some SFP+
<Ellied>
looks decent
<soundnfury>
(sure, you _can_ do 10GbE over base-T, but why _would_ you? The deconvolution adds a ton of latency, and with the amount of mags you'll need it's nearly as heavy as an SFP+ direct-attach copper module anyway)
<soundnfury>
there's also QSFP28 coming down the turnpike, which gets 100GbE into the same form factor. Hell if I know what anyone needs 100Gb for, though
<Ellied>
yeah that seems a little on the excessive side
<bofh>
01:13 <mlbaker> is it just me or is there a tendency among engineers, much more than mathematicians, to capitalize stuff?
<bofh>
01:13 <mlbaker> ex they often write "Linear Time Invariant" rather than "linear time-invariant"
<bofh>
01:19 <mlbaker> like when i see things capitalized it makes me feel like i'm reading a brand name or corporate slogan or something lol
<bofh>
01:19 <mlbaker> get your Linear Time Invariant Systems today!
<bofh>
01:21 <bofh_> 2 for 1 sale at Bob's Bait, Tackle & FIR Filters, now for a limited time only!
<bofh>
UmbralRaptor: so today I needed to embed a jpeg in a PDF container to print it via raw direct-print on the Xerox Workcenters here
<bofh>
UmbralRaptor: and I got fed up with pdflatex fucking up scaling and margins and literally constructed a PDF by hand in vim and then cat'd the jpeg data into it.
<SnoopJeDi>
shoulda used emacs, there's a command for that ?s
<SnoopJeDi>
/s*
<bofh>
I am amused as to how I got that to work on my first try in like 2 minutes. Admittedly your /Catalog is trivial, your Page Tree is literally one entry, your JPEG is a /DCTDecode stream which takes no arguments, your mediabox is literally the dimensions of an 8.5" x 11" page and your XRef tree has 5 entries (and is by far the most annoying bit since you get to calculate offsets into the pdf file)
<bofh>
but still
<FluffyFoxeh>
that's amazing
<bofh>
I spent entirely too many hours of my life in 2015/2016 reading the PDF-1.7 spec and it's left permanent psychological scarring, mostly :P
<kmath>
<Kate_ZJ> @diodelass Remind me never to buy second-hand hardware off you.
<egg>
bofh: yeah, we definitely like *de*capitalizing, by turning things into adjectives, abelian etc.; also not sure whether "the frobenius" (for "the Frobenius homomorphism") should be capitalized, but at least it's turning a name into a noun which is neat
<egg>
!wpn Fiora
* Qboid
gives Fiora a cathedral cow/nephroid hybrid
<kmath>
<stephentyrone> @FioraAeterna @timbray Let’s spend a hundred CPU-years to verify something we can prove in two tweets. For our next… https://t.co/mm9rpITsmt
ferram4 has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<Fiora>
egg: scanon is so good
<Fiora>
btw, so regarding the fdiv i mentioned
<Fiora>
here's how he (ian ollmann) did it.
<Fiora>
1. prove it for all num/denom values in the range 1...2 or something like that
<Fiora>
2. add rescaling step before div to fit everything in that range, and calculate exponent manually
<Fiora>
by prove i just mean run an exhaustive test for 2 months while he was bored
<Fiora>
(he would have to do rescaling for other reasons anyways afaik. this is for precise f32 fdiv implemented using f32 and imprecise RCP)
<Fiora>
brings me to one of my fave numerics traps iirc: newton's method is tricky with floats because the deltas can get flushed to zero
<egg>
Fiora: I feel like I'm missing some conteggst, which fdiv?
egg|phone|egg has joined #kspacademia
* egg
off to work
egg is now known as egg|afk|egg
egg|cell|egg has joined #kspacademia
egg|phone|egg has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<egg|cell|egg>
Holding a laptop and an umbrella is hard
<kmath>
<astronomolly> My brain doesn't seem to understand that just because I have 13 more hours to submit #aas231 abstracts doesn't mean I should take that long.
<Iskierka>
ARM is at the careers fair here and their slogan is "Architect the possible"
<Iskierka>
which strikes me as underwhelming
<Iskierka>
"yeah, all this stuff's perfectly doable, there's no challenge here"
* UmbralRaptor
is under the impression that people have had problems with theses because it turns out they were trying something physically impossible. >_>
<SnoopJeDi>
so I saw Margot Lee Shetterly (of Hidden Figures fame) speak last night, turns out her backup plan if she couldn't get the book published was to get a history PhD on the basis of that work o.O
<APlayer>
Okay, I am off for today then. See you!
APlayer has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<Iskierka>
I guess no order will let you do both?
* Ellied
is gonna try to learn Rust because it looks cool and she's still dragging her feet about C
* Iskierka
has no context for what rust is beyond that micah uses it
<Ellied>
I think whitequark uses it too
<Ellied>
at least that's what egg said when I was fighting with c++ on my microcontrollers
<Ellied>
It's supposed to be fast, have good memory safety (I don't know what that really means, but it sounds good) and the source code I've seen written in it is a lot more readable than C.
<Iskierka>
"Fast" -> compared to what, is my first question. Does it compete with C#, or beat it? Is it even close to C++? In the other direction, can I beat it by just compiling with pypy?
<Ellied>
I don't know. Wikipedia says "Rust is syntactically similar to C++, but is designed for better memory safety while maintaining performance."
<Ellied>
that seems to imply that its performance is comparable to C++
<Iskierka>
benchmarks is good
<SnoopJeDi>
the intuition for "memory safety" is all the stuff that goes into buffer overflows, bounds errors, pointer bad-juju and all the rest of that ilk
<Iskierka>
it's ... much more memory intensive in quite a lot of cases
<Iskierka>
also limited cases where it's *faster*, though several where it's close. But still quite a few with slower
<SnoopJeDi>
Ellied, yes, comparable is a fair description
<SnoopJeDi>
(AIUI)
<Ellied>
it looks like Rust might just use a higher baseline amount of memory than C does. The last two tasks have pretty high memory usage for both, but it's not the same ratio as the smaller-memory ones.
<Iskierka>
vs Java is telling, though Java's doing better than I'd've expected
<Iskierka>
Go is exceptionally bad at regex and trees
<Ellied>
vs C++ is pretty impressive. Higher memory usage in most cases, but comparable speed.
<Iskierka>
apparently Rust is *exceptional* at regex versus everything except base C?
<Iskierka>
which sounds to me like the C++ implementation is probably slightly bork ..
icefire has joined #kspacademia
<Iskierka>
impressive that a language can be so close though with protections. I may have to look at it if we need something along those lines at some point
<SnoopJeDi>
Java and others are pretty much always going to lose a fight like that because of the VM overhead AFAIK
<SnoopJeDi>
which is why stuff like Python's `re` module to put that work somewhere faster are a thing
<SnoopJeDi>
those sorts of benchmarks are just one cross-section of a conversation to have about any language, but yea Rust can be pretty zippy
<Ellied>
I might venture to say that for an undergrad-soon-grad physicist like myself, it's likely good enough
<Ellied>
I mean most people in this department know MATLAB as their only language
<Iskierka>
I mean given that speed, I'd say that alone provides a very good argument for it if you don't need to be able to compile to a remote target that doesn't (easily?) take rust
<Iskierka>
Matlab: AAAAAAAAaaaa
<SnoopJeDi>
You know Python well enough to exceed your coming grad colleagues
<SnoopJeDi>
although I don't know how familiar you are with the scipy stack?
<SnoopJeDi>
Julia might also be of interest to you Ellied and *maaaaybe* Kotlin but Kotlin's kinda kitsch
<SnoopJeDi>
uh R is also quite good
<Ellied>
My mom mentioned wanting to learn R (something of a surprise coming from her, a biologist who usually never touches a computer if it can possibly be avoided)
<SnoopJeDi>
does she use SPSS?
<SnoopJeDi>
R is like SPSS for people who don't hate themselves
<Ellied>
lol
* SnoopJeDi
doesn't know what he's talking about tbqh
<Ellied>
I don't know what software she uses for data, if anything. Her work is usually very qualitative and involves very small datasets, I think.
<SnoopJeDi>
the R ecosystem is probably my favorite in terms of culture, most things are documented nicely in pretty self-contained TeX docs, and RStudio is a wonderful exploratory environment that is promoting Markdown
<Iskierka>
although it is notably scalable
<SnoopJeDi>
ah okay Ellied. Bio's still going through the transition, it's gonna be a great couple of decades
<Ellied>
like, I'm sitting here while an experiment runs a hundred million times on the machine, she's out in the field visiting ten sites where she left bird poop traps and writing down what seeds she found on a clipboard
<Iskierka>
... I'm curious how you convince a bird to poop in a trap
<Iskierka>
parrots can be trained to poop in cages, contrary to popular belief, but I don't know how you'd do it in the wild
<Ellied>
you put a nice perch above it in the middle of a prarie and hope they land there
<Ellied>
it appears that they do indeed use it
<Iskierka>
and that the wind doesn't knock it off course?
<Ellied>
yup
<SnoopJeDi>
I'd assume the poo wouldn't go all that far even in strong winds?
<Ellied>
yeah, not usually
<SnoopJeDi>
but yea anyway, you're well above what I've seen for the baseline in physics in terms of computational stuff Ellied
<Ellied>
a somewhat amusing praise considering that I have no intention of becoming a computational physicist, but thank you nonetheless
<SnoopJeDi>
if you can wrangle the scipy stack on top of your CS knowledge you're golden, although knowing C/C++ well enough to know what you're looking at helps a lot when you inevitably have to read some. Fortran is...dealer's choice. With luck you won't have to read/write any.
<SnoopJeDi>
well I don't mean computational physics in particular, I mean general computational skills (everybody's gotta plot)
<Ellied>
ah, sure
<SnoopJeDi>
I would guess at least 70% of my colleagues are not terribly aware of data structures or asymptotic complexity, for example
<Ellied>
The code I really *like* to write is that which controls automated experiments on machines
<SnoopJeDi>
Most of them struggle horribly with git (or don't use it except grudgingly), don't use regex, blah blah
<Iskierka>
would they happily write O(n^^n) complexity?
<SnoopJeDi>
nothing immediately comes to mind that is n^n complexity but probably
<SnoopJeDi>
O(N^2) is bad enough and easy to find
<Iskierka>
O(n^2) is at least something you can throw more power at and get meaningful results
<SnoopJeDi>
fair
<SnoopJeDi>
and indeed often you don't have a choice
* Ellied
imagines Iskierka meant O(n↑↑n)
<SnoopJeDi>
heh
<Iskierka>
I did as having reread the article on it more carefully I apparently misunderstood the first time; ↑ === ^ in ASCII limitations
<Ellied>
*adds one character to program* *program will now take longer to run than the lifespan of the universe*
<Iskierka>
I previously thought ↑ was ^ stacked
<Ellied>
wait, really? n^n^n^n etc repeated n times?
<Iskierka>
Glancing over I thought 3↑3 was 3^3^3, but it's actually just 3^3, ^ is ASCII limits. So logically we can reverse that and 3^^3 == 3^3^3, and 3^^^3 == AAAAAAA!
<Greys>
don't you hate it when you have to deal with corporate bullshit on tech support with your phone manufacturer who mailed you a phone with somebody else's name on it that they then insist is your phone now so you have 3 beers but then your new phone Jason, because it was Jason's name on the phone refuses to accept your SIM card so you get on chat with your phone service manufacturer and after an hour or so they say "We don't believe you so you have to go to a phy
<Greys>
Iskierka, how did you make just that one sentence less bold than the rest of my buffer
<Greys>
did you discover the opposite of bold?
<SnoopJeDi>
sounds like your client has silly rules for bold
<Iskierka>
knowing about it now I wish I could go back to the silly maths puzzles school teachers would sometimes offer for finding the way to make the biggest number and destroy the record holder
<Iskierka>
and yes, sounds like bold is default, so triggering bold is unbolding
<SnoopJeDi>
I guess that's the only sensible thing to do when you use a bold font?
<SnoopJeDi>
either that or set bold to plaid
<Greys>
you could more bold
<Greys>
like, increase font size by one and remove bold
<Iskierka>
Some fonts will be bolder just by the font file definition, but if it says "bold" as the name it's probably got the bold flag and hitting another removes it
<SnoopJeDi>
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
<Iskierka>
protip: that's not how fonts work. The bold version of the font is (usually) properly defined as an entirely new font
<Greys>
I use bold for readability
<Iskierka>
as there's no simple scaling method
<Iskierka>
and I've not read it, though there's plenty to read on the internet so this will be statistically true
<Greys>
this is why we need a new paradigm where pixels are half the size that can be discerned with the naked eye, so we can always scale arbitrarily
<SnoopJeDi>
"need"
<SnoopJeDi>
if only someone had thought about the problem of typography at all for several centuries, eh?
<Greys>
just because it's unnecessary doesn't mean we don't need it.
<Iskierka>
also: accurately defining the size that can be discerned by the naked eye
<Iskierka>
Eye can determine (limited) shape at below the size of alternating-checkers it can tell apart from a solid colour
<Iskierka>
due to its unrestricted overlap of nerve connections that get confused by the grid but can cut down to a single point overlap much smaller
<Greys>
according to the internet I'm safe to drive, but I'll be twice as safe to drive in an hour, approaching alcoholless in two hours
<Greys>
place'll still be open then
icefire has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<Ellied>
can't wait till all screens have pixels only visible with a microscope but today is not then
<Greys>
unless that screen is getting stabbed into my eye by a professional medical phone eye stabition, that seems unnecessary
<Iskierka>
I'd note arguably with subpixels modern monitors and phones are already there
<SnoopJeDi>
15:44 < Greys> just because it's unnecessary doesn't mean we don't need it.
<Iskierka>
it's just that aliasing makes the size very obvious
<Iskierka>
hard to see the fine detail, but it still pops out in the result
<Iskierka>
As in the r, g, b sections that synthetic chromatic abberation exploits, if you assign the right type, to simulate triple resolution in one dimension
<Iskierka>
(unless you have one of the types like r above, g-b below, in which case it'd be a very rough approximation to say the increase and linux renderers usually don't support it)
<Ellied>
KDE font rendering options allow you to select vertical or horizontal RGB or BGR
<Iskierka>
Yeah, hence last statement
<Ellied>
I haven't tried turning on the wrong one just to see what happens
<Iskierka>
I don't know how common others will be so don't know how many monitors that would miss
<Ellied>
oh I see, you mean like R arranged vertically above G-B arranged horizontally
<Ellied>
it might be interesting (if exceedingly difficult to move to) to see non-rectangular pixels, like a hexagonal grid where the subpixels are even radial subdivisions (assuming of course equal brightness for each color which is probably still not realistic)
<Iskierka>
but it *does* kill subpixel rendering as there's no space bias in the position of each colour
<Iskierka>
so you'd need much smaller pixels to render it unnecessary
<Greys>
yanno what would help this system; RGBW
<Ellied>
doesn't seem like it would, couldn't you use the corners to make a pretty good 45° diagonal?
<Iskierka>
You'd need to be able to control each corner individually in the video encoding
<Greys>
so then you can make a proper tiling arrangement of subpixels, and rotate then in a complex superpixel pattern to obscure the arrangement
<Ellied>
right, just realized that
<Iskierka>
and white wouldn't really help. It'd still be off-balance around each pixel substructure
<Iskierka>
if you wanted to improve in that regard, invent coloured liquid crystal so you can stack all three colours on each other and turning them all off gives white
<Ellied>
clearly we need to just invent some magic LED that can produce truly variable wavelength from the same element
<Greys>
LCD technology is at life's end
<Iskierka>
(alternatively, transparent OLEds to stack in the same way)
<Greys>
that would work IF you could figure out how to make high quality color accurate LEDs in all four primary colors without phosphors
<Ellied>
yeah that'd be better
<Ellied>
why do you need white? Isn't RGB composite good enough?
<egg>
ferram4: reunification is going well, I'm doing n-body gravitation to rovers whenever they get off the ground for a few milliseconds :D
<Iskierka>
OLEDs reportedly have the best colour reproduction and gamut of anything, so we have that down
<Iskierka>
just we can't shine through them
<Greys>
white isn't a primary color
<Iskierka>
Ellied: I assume greys suggests that so you can make a square that is theoretically more balanced
<Ellied>
wait, so what are your four primary colors
<ferram4>
Excellent
<Greys>
RGBY
<Ellied>
why Y
<Greys>
because blue LEDs plus green LEDs make for a shitty yellow
<Iskierka>
that's because they make cyan
<Iskierka>
red + green makes yellow
<Greys>
so you want RGBMYC?
<Greys>
I'm for that
<Iskierka>
No, because MYC are secondary colours
<Ellied>
I don't think your eyeball can tell the difference between properly balanced R/G and true Y. Unless you're a tetrachromat.
<Greys>
I guess, there isn't yet a theoretical reason to not have six color tones
<Iskierka>
There is because you can't perceive the difference with properly calibrated RGB and literally perfectly tuned individual colour emitters
<Iskierka>
colour is hard so properly calibrated RGB is admittedly rare but adding more (secondary!) colours to it won't help
<Ellied>
I guess if your green is too close to blue, yellows might look washed out
<Greys>
if we can get rid of the phosphors, LEDs can be made small enough that the emission point could basically overlap, they may still look like subpixels on a microscope but they'd function as an omnipixel, so we could easily fit 7 LEDs in tight arrangement
<Iskierka>
we already have OLED we don't need to go smaller
<Iskierka>
we can reasonably cheaply do 4k on a 4.5" screen at this point
<Greys>
[16:52:01] <SnoopJeDi> 15:44 < Greys> just because it's unnecessary doesn't mean we don't need it.
<Iskierka>
we already fit multiple emitters in a tight arrangement. this is the point of pixel rendering.
<Greys>
currently the emitters are divided into subpixels
<Greys>
we could theoretically fit all the emitters in a single opening on the screen
<Greys>
so under a microscope you'd see one hole with a handful of LEDs; instead of N holes
<Ellied>
wonder how hard it would be to have physically mobile pixels using MEMS
<Iskierka>
<Iskierka> (alternatively, transparent OLEds to stack in the same way)
<Iskierka>
to be in the same place they need to be able to shine through each other
<Greys>
right but do they need to stack
<Iskierka>
if you want to use a single point opening, yes
<Greys>
you could arrange 7 in a hexagonal pattern on a single plane
<Greys>
instead of having them at different depths
<Greys>
depths will mess with light escapement
<Iskierka>
if you simply want it small enough to be imperceptible, again, OLED: 4k @ 4"
<Iskierka>
and you're obsessed with this more colours that doesn't help at all
<Iskierka>
it will not express any more colour depth than appropriately calibrated, and much bigger and brighter, RGB
<Greys>
the omnipixel concept would actually improve RGB as well, because colors would mix in the same reflector housing, and at no scale would the pixel be seen as points of color
<Greys>
primary*
<Iskierka>
You don't have a reflector housing
<Iskierka>
they're just emitting nodes
<Ellied>
I'm not sure having three different LEDs shine out of the same apparent point is optically possible
<Iskierka>
that too
<Iskierka>
bar them being, again, transparent
<Greys>
LEDs aren't directional, you need a reflector
<Iskierka>
You have a white layer behind them
<Iskierka>
that's it
<Greys>
that, is a reflector.
<Iskierka>
it's not a housing
<Iskierka>
it's often literally a piece of white card behind the screen
<Greys>
so your pixels aren't separated from each other?
<Iskierka>
They're separated by the same grid that provides the colour filters
<Iskierka>
which just blacks out the borders
<Greys>
but we can't have color filters in an omnipixel, since the colors aren't divided
<Greys>
this is part of why we have to get rid of the phosphors
<Greys>
if the blue LED is emitting through the green LED's phosphors, you're going to get something odd
<Iskierka>
... this isn't how it works at all
<Ellied>
uh, do green LEDs use phosphors?
<Greys>
ok maybe they don't, but blues do so flip it
<Iskierka>
I'm not convinced they do and the phosphors aren't relevant
<Greys>
blue LEDs use phosphors to add in a bit of yellow so it's less indigo
<Qboid>
egg: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<kmath>
YouTube - The Most Launched Rocket - A History Of The R-7
<Ellied>
that much I am sure of because I work with them a lot and look at them through the diffraction grating I attached to my glasses
<Iskierka>
the OLED design LG used in 2013 notably worked the same way as LCD, with a pile of OLEDs below emitting through a colour filter grid
<Ellied>
the newer green ones have a kind of slurred spectrum compared to the really sharp points of blue and red, so I might almost believe they have phosphor, but I don't believe so since their forward voltage is lower
<Iskierka>
(slightly more complex as they did control each colour individually on the OLED side, but they did have the filter grid still)
<Iskierka>
Or possibly they didn't. This is a strange way to do it
<Iskierka>
perhaps this is referring to PMOLED
<Greys>
active matrix is definitely better, I can't imagine a way to make a PMOLED screen without an LCD panel
<Ellied>
Greys: to keep it from being yanked out of the package
<Iskierka>
Greys: then you don't know how PMOLED is working. Neither use an LCD panel
<Iskierka>
it is apparently not the difference I was thinking the old LG tech might be doing, though; presumably not controlling individual colours (without filter) is just cheaper
<Iskierka>
Ah, this is apparently to make the yields viable for large TVs
<Iskierka>
so phones are probably individually controlled and modern TVs may have moved to it also
<Iskierka>
unsure about monitors as it's only recently they got to the point the burn-in is low enough to try them
<Iskierka>
anyway, just packing more pixels in is slowly getting us somewhere. Adding more colours just muddies it and makes it harder to control with no real improvement. And while there's some fancy layouts that can improve perception they're only really in bespoke stuff, since it'll be impossible for general renderers to anticipate all the possibilities
<Iskierka>
And as an aside, I'd like it if windows tried to explain what aspect it was trying to optimise in each question. I usually do the config 2-3 times and do change it, as in each question I'm unsure what aspects might optimise later
<Iskierka>
don't need to tell me what each is, so subconscious bias doesn't pick the one that feels tidiest or something, just what it's testing
icefire has joined #kspacademia
<egg>
!wpn Iskierka
* Qboid
gives Iskierka an IEEE 488 proof-like kmath
<egg>
!wpn Ellied
* Qboid
gives Ellied a regular hydrofluoroolefin
<Ellied>
aaaaaa IEEE 488 aaaaaaa
<egg>
Ellied: will you be replacing ports on your laptop with that,