Thanks for that. On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Jonathan Marcus <[email protected]>wrote:
> Math check: it's not 0.5s/2000, it's 0.5ms/2000, which is around a quarter > of a microsecond, which seems plausible >
Thanks for that. On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Jonathan Marcus <[email protected]>wrote:
> Math check: it's not 0.5s/2000, it's 0.5ms/2000, which is around a quarter > of a microsecond, which seems plausible >