Fixed point FFT scaling

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:20:23 -0700, Jon Harris wrote:
> On the topic of news service, I used to use and recommend news.individual.net,
> but just a week ago, they switched from being free to being a paid service.  Are
> there any good free news servers out there?  My ISP offers one so I'm back to
> using that.  It wasn't quite as good as news.individual.net, hence my switch,
> but it is decent.  News servers/readers are vastly superior to web access, IMHO.

I just ponied up to keep using news.individual.net.  It didn't seem like a
terribly large impost, and it does work pretty well.  My ISP news server
also works OK, but gets regularly black listed on account of spam input,
and is unavailable unless connected through said ISP (eg. at work...)

Running a news server is a pretty major undertaking.  I wouldn't expect it
to be done well for nothing.  Google gets its ad revenue, but you can't
force ads down an NNTP connection, so NNTP servers either have to be paid
for by your ISP contract or some other way.

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew

Richard Owlett wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> > testing...
> >
> > sheesh, this new Google Groups is weird....
> >
> > r b-j
> >
>
> My ISP charges *more* than industry minimum.
> For that I get:
> 1. PORTAL-less WEB access

dunno even what that is.  i dial in, i get access.

(BTW, i'm dialup because, even though i'm in the largest town in
Vermont, i live in the farthest northwest corner and am too far away
from the switch to get DSL and i hadn't wanted to get cable TV and
cable modem is not available without the cable TV hookup.  so dialup it
is.  don't send me any long attachements, please.)

> 2. Email with improving spam blocking and rock solid virus blocking

not much viruses out there for a Mac.

> 3. access to newsgroups via supernews.com
>
> #3 is a biggee.
> I don't see any of the problems many complain about.
> I doubt that supernews.com is *ONLY* service that provides this
advantage.
>
> *YOU DO GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR*  ;)

sometimes, i think that you get proportionately to what you pay for,
but that isn't even the case.  my ISP newserver doesn't seem too bad
(it's newsguy.com whoever those guys are), but some posts haven't shown
up.  NONE of these skewed OT posts have, and the original post hadn't,
but i could see it with google and news2web.com.

i used google groups (and its predicessor deja-news) in the past so i
could read and post to USENET remotely without dialing into my ISP from
home.  i've also used it to find old posts to read or to cite.  anyway,
this new beta version of Google Groups is not better, just weirder.
even though i was registered with the old, i had to re-register and
they asked for a nickname (and i'm glad i didn't say "shithead" or
similar because that's would have been posted in the From: header).
they didn't tell you.  (i fixed it, and am now posting this with
google.)  and they're doing all sorts of stupid unnecessary formatting
of the articles.  they're really taking a giant step backwards (in the
AOL direction) doing cutsie things when all we want is to read and post
unmolested.

> PS. Haven't checked Google's privacy policy, But YAHOO's *STINKS*

i don't mess with yahoo at all for anything.

r b-j

Richard Owlett wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> 
>> testing...
>>
>> sheesh, this new Google Groups is weird....
>>
>> r b-j
>>
> 
> My ISP charges *more* than industry minimum.
> For that I get:
> 1. PORTAL-less WEB access
> 2. Email with improving spam blocking and rock solid virus blocking
> 3. access to newsgroups via supernews.com
> 
> #3 is a biggee.
> I don't see any of the problems many complain about.
> I doubt that supernews.com is *ONLY* service that provides this advantage.
> 
> *YOU DO GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR*  ;)
> 
> PS. Haven't checked Google's privacy policy, But YAHOO's *STINKS*

I'll do my own spam blocking, if you please. Is the SwiftForth mailing 
list getting through to you?

AOL commercials imply -- hell: claim outright -- that you their service 
is the only way to avoid catching a virus. I do my own virus checking, 
too. Eben though IEEE and my ISP both scan for viruses, some have gotten 
through to me and been squashed by Norton. A year of it costs about a 
month of AOL. Meanwhile, I get news and web hosting for half of that 
monthly.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Jerry Avins wrote:

> Richard Owlett wrote:
> 
>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>>> testing...
>>>
>>> sheesh, this new Google Groups is weird....
>>>
>>> r b-j
>>>
>>
>> My ISP charges *more* than industry minimum.
>> For that I get:
>> 1. PORTAL-less WEB access
>> 2. Email with improving spam blocking and rock solid virus blocking
>> 3. access to newsgroups via supernews.com
>>
>> #3 is a biggee.
>> I don't see any of the problems many complain about.
>> I doubt that supernews.com is *ONLY* service that provides this 
>> advantage.
>>
>> *YOU DO GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR*  ;)
>>
>> PS. Haven't checked Google's privacy policy, But YAHOO's *STINKS*
> 
> 
> I'll do my own spam blocking, if you please. 

My ISP's system gives me best of both worlds. Virus blocking and spam 
*scoring* on their hardware. I get to chose what actually happens to a 
email with a specific score.

> Is the SwiftForth mailing list getting through to you?

It was always getting thru having a score of .47 on scale of 0-10 with 
my Quarantine level set at 1.0. Unfortunately some actual spam was 
scoring there or below. I'm lowering Quarantine level and tweaking 
whitelist.


> 
> AOL commercials imply -- hell: claim outright -- that you their service 
> is the only way to avoid catching a virus. I do my own virus checking, 
> too. Eben though IEEE and my ISP both scan for viruses, some have gotten 
> through to me and been squashed by Norton. A year of it costs about a 
> month of AOL. Meanwhile, I get news and web hosting for half of that 
> monthly.
> 
> Jerry

i agree google groups is ugly

try it in fixed font mode and view as tree mode

it's  a little less ugly that way

Mark