How To Make Youtube Speed Faster Than 2x

[Ronald Frison]

Ive got a notebook with 4k display. Unfortunately, now it takes at least two full diagonals on the trackpoint to move the mouse from one corner of the screen to the other diagonal. I already set the mouse courser speed to the highest value, but it is by far not enough. Is there any way to increase the mouse speed or modify the maximum value in the mouse dialoge. It is a Lenovo X1 Yoga.

Open registry editor. Then find the registry key HKCU\Control Panel\Mouse. Now set MouseThreshold1 and MouseThreshold2 values to 0. Then set MouseSpeed to 2 (Quadraple current speed) or 1 (Double current speed). MouseSpeed value can't be more than 2. Then reboot. Mouse will now be more faster.

I went to registry editor as suggested on the most voted answer, except for the part "MouseSpeed value can't be more than 2", the default was already "3" on mine. Changed it to 10 and it feels a little better than before, nothing broke.

There is another reason to use an int, and that is to normalise the database. Instead of having the text 'Mercedes-Benz' stored thousands of times in the table, you should store it's id and have the brand name stored once in a separate table.

Breaking down to the actual performance of string comparison versus non-floats, in this case any size unsigned and signed does not matter. Size is actually the true difference in performance. Be it 1byte+(up to 126bytes) versus 1,2,4 or 8 byte comparison... obviously non-float are smaller than strings and floats, and thus more CPU friendly in assembly.

String to string comparison in all languages is slower than something that can be compared in 1 instruction by the CPU. Even comparing 8 byte (64bit) on a 32bit CPU is still faster than a VARCHAR(2) or larger. * Again, look at the produced assembly (even by hand) it takes more instructions to compare char by char than 1 to 8 byte CPU numeric.

Now, how much faster? depends also upon the volume of data. If you are simply comparing 5 to 'audi' - and that is all your DB has, the resulting difference is so minimal you would never see it. Depending upon CPU, implementation (client/server, web/script, etc) you probably will not see it until you hit few hundred comparisons on the DB server (maybe even a couple thousand comparisons before it is noticeable).

Another reason: index on varchar field will be much larger than on int. For larger tables it may mean hundreds of megabytes (and thousands of pages). That makes the performance much worse as reading the index alone requires many disk reads.

Somewhat relative. Yes, INTs will be faster, but the question is if it is noticeable in your situation. Are the VARCHARs just some small words, or longer texts? and how many rows are in the table? If there are just a few rows it will most likely be entirely buffered in memory (when requested often), in that case you wont notice much difference. Then of course there is indexing, which gets more important when the table grows. Using SSD's might be faster then HD's with optimized queries. Also good disk-controllers sometimes speed up queries >10x . This might leave room for just using VARCHARs which makes reading and writing queries easier (no need to write complex joins) and speed up development. Purists however will disagree and always normalize everything.

as a developer of databases, our databases will use heap-based sorting algorithms in order to decrease extra memory-consuming.but when we use bucket-based sorting algorithm to improve it, in int32 and int64, it works(40% time off, with 0.1-billion records). But in varchar, it works even worse and seems hardly unchanged.even in Oracle, it is also seems to let VARCHAR-SORTING algorithm to be more quicker than now with their complicated sorting-rule in different languages.

Dear Mr Carroll,

I loved your explanation! For the first time I red a clear explanation about, in very simple and accesible language.

I finnaly understood the concept wich is not very clear in many experts popular explanations. Congrats

Hmm, I think the suggestion of superluminal expansion during inflation might be used to help explain that during an inflationary epoch (including now) objects at the edge of observable move out of the observable as if they had been pushed faster than the speed of light. The number of objects which are observable becomes smaller and smaller. While during non-inflationary epochs objects that are just barely unobservable become observable as if they were traveling just under the speed of light.

I agree it is a flawed explanation. It is in fact a matter of the acceleration. During inflation apparently subluminal velocities turn into apparently superluminal ones. During non inflation, apparently superluminal turn into apparently subluminal ones. Still in this sense it might fall into the realm of trying to explain technical ideas with less precise language.

If you imagine a universe with infinite space that are slowly expanding, it is easy to see, that no matter how low the expansion rate is, there will always be objects so far away from you, that the distance increases more than 1 light-year in a year!

What happens if you embed our expanding universe in a higher-dimensional flat space like R^5 or R^6, or whatever. Then you can define a velocity with respect to the coordinate axis of that larger space. Doing that, what is the acceleration rate then?

You can do it, but it is not very useful. Go back to the balloon analogy with a spatially closed universe. You can then ask what is the velocity of expansion of the balloon relative to its centre. This is a well defined concept. However, even if this is less than the speed of light, the relative velocities (in the sense of the velocity-distance law) can still be greater than the speed of light.

Speed of sound is always relative to the material the sound propagates in; it moves faster through denser media, such as the aluminum structure of the aircraft itself. The aircraft's structure moves with the aircraft, so the vibrations of the jet engines will be transmitted to the cockpit/cabin at the same speed as when the airplane were flying subsonic.

The air inside the cockpit is still, and so sound within this local bubble is unaffected by the speed of the bubble itself (and so sound can travel faster than sound). If this weren't true then radios and other cockpit sound sources like alarms would be inaudible at supersonic speeds, which would be a major safety hazard and tactical disadvantage to supersonic flight.

I have flown at 1.3 and what does change is the airflow around the aircraft, changing the flight characteristics of the jet. The handling of the jet becomes much more stable. If your jet could aileron roll at 360 degrees per second subsonic, it now lumbers through a roll at perhaps 120 degrees per second. Your only real indicators of going supersonic are seeing your pressure instruments (airspeed/Mach indicator and VVI) momentarily jumping as you pass M 1 and the fact that your shiny little rocket now flies like a 172, albeit considerably faster, higher and cooler.

In most scenarios the extra stop between 1/4000 and 1/8000 second will make very little difference in terms of freezing motion. 1/4000 will freeze all but the fastest objects you are likely to encounter, and even 1/2000 will freeze world class human athletes and most animals at typical shooting distances.

Where the extra stop will come in handy is when you are in very bright light, have already adjusted your camera to the lowest available ISO and want to use a wider aperture to reduce the Depth of Field (DoF). If you find yourself shooting in such situations often, you will probably wind up eventually acquiring and learning to use Neutral Density (ND) Filters. These reduce the amount of light entering the camera without adding a color cast (hopefully) in order to enable slower shutter speeds and/or wider apertures when desired. Once you start shooting with ND filters the difference between the two camera's fastest shutter speeds will not mean much.

Having said that, there are often other features that differ between such models. In the case of the Canon 5D mark III versus the Canon 6D, for example, the 1-series focus system of the 5D3 is worth the difference in price compared to the less capable 'prosumer' focus system in the 6D, but only if you need the faster, more accurate, and more consistent focus system. On the other hand, the 6D includes built-in WiFi and GPS. If you need those extras, it will cost quite a bit to add them to the 5D3 via external modules.

1/8000 does have it's uses - mostly super-fast sport at close range, but even formula 1 race cars (photographed from a safe distance without a super-telephoto lens) don't show much motion blur at 1/500.

Unless you photograph sports from up close both 1/4000 and 1/8000 are faster than you'll need, my guess is that the two models you are considering may have some differences that you should care about but the max shutter speed isn't it.

Did this post help you? If so please give it a Like below.

Did this post fix your issue/answer your question? If so please press the 'Accept as Best Answer' button to help others find it.

Still stuck? Ask me a question! (Questions asked in the community will likely receive an answer within 4 hours!)

Did this post not resolve your issue? If so please give us some more information so we can try and help - please remember we cannot see over your shoulder so be as descriptive as possible!

No, there is no limit. It just slows things down initially as there are overheads on checking each file.

I can quite easily upload movies of a few GB here in a couple of minutes, but, thats because everything else is already sync'd and so the overheads are low.

Have a look at -uploads/faster-sync

3a8082e126