I use Spotify on my Android phone (Samsung i5700). Even with the tracks synced to my SD card, the music can stutter if you're trying to browse the web at the same time as listening to music. Streaming over wifi and browsing is completely useless.
I'm assuming that there are overheads inherent in the data reception and processing that cause this, and thus dual-core makes sense. Quad-core? I guess it's the same issue as found with full-fat PC CPUs - is Quad-core that helpful unless you have programs that can utilise the extra available threads?
Another factor could be energy-efficiency - is it more efficient to have extra cores that can switch themselves off when not required, or have fewer cores that are sometimes overwhelmed? There's marketing in there too of course: "Hey, my phone's got more cores than your laptop...!".
Surely half the job has been done by the increased use of wireless keyboards? I know they're generally short-range transmitters, but wouldn't it be relatively easy to reverse-engineer the wireless communication of various company's wireless devices to create a universal listening device?
A lot of people seem to be dismissing this as without a practical use. However there is method to the seemed madness of making ever-bigger nuclei. Elements tend to be either stable or unstable - carbon is stable, uranium is not. This stability is caused by the arangement of protons/neutrons in the atoms' nucleii. I'm not exactly sure why this occurs - I'm a biologist, I'm not really meant to know - but whether or not a nulceus is stable or not follows a pattern determined by "shell-model" calculations (see here for the science bit).
So although making 3 atoms of 118 doesn't seem to amount to much, especially as it instantly falls apart, it's another step on the way to making th first of the synthetic heavy elements in a "stability island". It's thought that such a material could have strange and useful properties. Or it could be a complete waste of money and be boring as hell. I don't know, but that's the point of research at the end of the day...
Sonic 3 [Megadrive] - One of the few games I can complete to order, about 45-60 minutes for the whole game with all chaos emeralds. If a game came out these days you could complete in that time, it'd be slated.:-P I now have it on my GP32 so I can be "comforted" on the train etc...
Transport Tycoon Deluxe [PC] - Ok, it needs heavy patching to work on XP (hopefully, someone will work out how to use it with Vista) but it's a classic. I normally only play it on the "West Country 90210" map when in "comfort" mode, as it's flat and pretty easy to make a profit on.
The Sims 2 [PC] - Yes, it's playing dolls-houses. But I like it. I tend to cheat, build huge houses and stick as many slightly psycho sims in as possible, then sit back and watch the fights start.
Links LS 2000 etc [PC] - It's golf. Without the walking or physical effort. Which basically makes it akin to a full-frontal lobotomy whilst drunk and on valium. Unless you try putting, in which case it's a complete pain in the backside.
SimCity 3000 [PC] - I'm not sure why people say SC 2000 is better than 3000. SC 3000 always had a lot more character to it, what with its traffic and sarcastic advisors. Anyway, I spent most of the start of my second year at Uni playing on one city in SC 3000. I still haven't filled the entire map either. It's a bitch to start a successful city, and it seems a little linear if you want to make any profits within a reasonable time, but once you've paid off your loans and you're raking the cash in, the world is your shellfish of choice.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Spotify on my Android phone (Samsung i5700). Even with the tracks synced to my SD card, the music can stutter if you're trying to browse the web at the same time as listening to music. Streaming over wifi and browsing is completely useless. I'm assuming that there are overheads inherent in the data reception and processing that cause this, and thus dual-core makes sense. Quad-core? I guess it's the same issue as found with full-fat PC CPUs - is Quad-core that helpful unless you have programs that can utilise the extra available threads? Another factor could be energy-efficiency - is it more efficient to have extra cores that can switch themselves off when not required, or have fewer cores that are sometimes overwhelmed? There's marketing in there too of course: "Hey, my phone's got more cores than your laptop...!".
'scanned, rehashed, and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers.' ...that the article ends up on Slashdot?
I would go to red alert, but that would mean changing the bulb...
...StumbleUpon.
18. Wires. OK, so theyâ(TM)re not gone yet, but it wonâ(TM)t be long Weren't they saying that about 10 years ago?
Oh goody. Now I can get dropped connections from twice the distance!
Surely half the job has been done by the increased use of wireless keyboards? I know they're generally short-range transmitters, but wouldn't it be relatively easy to reverse-engineer the wireless communication of various company's wireless devices to create a universal listening device?
A lot of people seem to be dismissing this as without a practical use. However there is method to the seemed madness of making ever-bigger nuclei. Elements tend to be either stable or unstable - carbon is stable, uranium is not. This stability is caused by the arangement of protons/neutrons in the atoms' nucleii. I'm not exactly sure why this occurs - I'm a biologist, I'm not really meant to know - but whether or not a nulceus is stable or not follows a pattern determined by "shell-model" calculations (see here for the science bit).
So although making 3 atoms of 118 doesn't seem to amount to much, especially as it instantly falls apart, it's another step on the way to making th first of the synthetic heavy elements in a "stability island". It's thought that such a material could have strange and useful properties. Or it could be a complete waste of money and be boring as hell. I don't know, but that's the point of research at the end of the day...
My top 5:
Sonic 3 [Megadrive] - One of the few games I can complete to order, about 45-60 minutes for the whole game with all chaos emeralds. If a game came out these days you could complete in that time, it'd be slated. :-P I now have it on my GP32 so I can be "comforted" on the train etc...
Transport Tycoon Deluxe [PC] - Ok, it needs heavy patching to work on XP (hopefully, someone will work out how to use it with Vista) but it's a classic. I normally only play it on the "West Country 90210" map when in "comfort" mode, as it's flat and pretty easy to make a profit on.
The Sims 2 [PC] - Yes, it's playing dolls-houses. But I like it. I tend to cheat, build huge houses and stick as many slightly psycho sims in as possible, then sit back and watch the fights start.
Links LS 2000 etc [PC] - It's golf. Without the walking or physical effort. Which basically makes it akin to a full-frontal lobotomy whilst drunk and on valium. Unless you try putting, in which case it's a complete pain in the backside.
SimCity 3000 [PC] - I'm not sure why people say SC 2000 is better than 3000. SC 3000 always had a lot more character to it, what with its traffic and sarcastic advisors. Anyway, I spent most of the start of my second year at Uni playing on one city in SC 3000. I still haven't filled the entire map either. It's a bitch to start a successful city, and it seems a little linear if you want to make any profits within a reasonable time, but once you've paid off your loans and you're raking the cash in, the world is your shellfish of choice.