Does this "groovy" breakthrough only apply to chips that have been pasted with thermal goo? Will I get a hotter CPU by only using the new roughened heat sink without the goo? Of course you will. The grooves increase the surface area of the paste/heat-sink interface, as well as helping get a very thin layer of paste. But without the paste, the only contact will be at the tops of the ridges, which is much less surface area. BTW, the article isn't talking about using the grooves at the heat-spreader/heat-sink interface, it's talking about using it at the more critical chip/heat-spreader interface inside the CPU. IOW, it effects manufacturing, not user installation. Just look at the diagram.
Could someone please explain to someone who's comfortable with suffering from a hardcore-attention-span-lexia? If you're comfortable with it, why did you post anonymously.
IIRC, retail (not OEM!) AMD chips have (or had, a couple of years ago when I last built a system) a "thermal pad" on the included heat-sink As of last fall, they still do. And it is a RPITA to clean it off. I had to because a certain electronics retailer, named after a much better grocery chain, sold me a "new" processor with the thermal pad already melted, and I didn't feel comfortable re-using it.
just 22 percent who say they cannot afford a computer or the cost of Internet service
"I do all my e-commerce shopping and YouTube-watching at work" was cited by 14 percent of Internet-access refuseniks. So, many people don't have home internet because they are unemployed/underemployed. And almost as many people don't need home internet because they have jobs where they spend all day on the internet instead of working.
Well, all this reading makes me feel like going outside for a walk. Bye
Most important how much beer does one have to consume for this to be a legitimate topic of conversation? [goes to fridge, gets another]
5 bottles, apparently.
I wonder if the religious right will get pissed that people are solving the world's problems using natural selection. The religious right never complains about benefiting from the theories of Darwin, only about people acting as if they are true.
"GLOBAL" warming refers to what is being warmed, not who is doing the warming. Correct, but the biggest contributer by far, is the Sun. I don't know about per capita, because no one knows how many Solarians there are, but if we could get them to stop turning up the heat, the Earth would stop getting warmer in a hurry.
Is an ad homonym attack when you try to attack someone's statement by substituting words they said with different words, with different meanings, but the same pronunciation? Shirley, if that is so we can all agree that ad homonym attacks are quite inappropriate.
It's true that being an asshole when dealing with a dick will lower your position in most cases. But in fact there are many positions dicks and assholes may assume with respect with one another. Some will tell you that the dick will still get the best of the exchange, but in reality it's all a matter of preference. You forgot the legal issues. In most places, being an asshole when dealing with a dick is legal, provided both the dick and the asshole are willing participants. However, in certain states and countries, dicks and assholes are prohibited from consorting with each other at all. Regardless, in almost all places it is highly illegal for a dick to engage with anyone who does not desire it. In fact, a dick can be charged with a misdemeanor for simply appearing in public. Personally, I think being a dick when dealing with an asshole is a waste of time anyway. When dealing with a pussy, however, being a dick can be quite rewarding - as can being a pussy when dealing with a dick. Butt, as you said, this is purely a matter of preference.
First, you claim that this would make a "killer car" for Americans, then you claim that you would never drive it because it is unsafe. I can only assume by "killer car," you mean that it would cause lots of people to be killed, and you think this would be good, as long as those people aren't you or your family.
Second, an M1A1 tank would be one of the most unsafe vehicles in the world (unless, of course, you're in a war and people are trying to kill you). Have you ever seen the inside of one of those things? You would be surrounded by steel all right, lots of hard, sharp, protruding pieces of steel. I would rather go over Niagara Falls in a barrel, than be in one of those when it crashes. Not only that, but it would be very difficult to drive, especially in a city, meaning you'd be more likely to wreck it.
But thats the problem isn't it. No matter what the crash tests say, most people just feel safer in a larger vehicle. Show them all the evidence you want that a Chevy Malibu is safer than a 1500, and they will shrug it off and listen to their gut instinct anyway. Personally, it doesn't bother me. You want to put your family in danger so they feel safe, be my guest. What does bother me, is when drivers of large vehicles have the attitude "don't think about forcing me off the road. I know I will win that fight against all those little sedans/commuter cars." If I have the right-of-way, you will not win. Drivers of large vehicles often seem to think they can intimidate smaller cars, but I have not met one yet who would actually hit my car (although a few have come within inches) when I had the right-of-way. Sucks too, because I could really use a new paint job. Though with my luck, when it finally does happen, they probably won't have insurance.
I hear that. I've only ever been in one two car accident - it was pretty minor - and we were both at fault. However, I have probably prevented dozens, even hundreds, of accidents that other people tried to cause. I say "prevented" as opposed to "avoided" because I actively took action to avoid them, and my actions protected others from their own incompetence as much as they protected me.
The smog laws in America are almost pointless when you consider it's GLOBAL warming and India/Mexico are basically shitting into the atmosphere. Smog has nothing to do with global warming. Look at some pictures of American skylines from the '70s and compare them to today. That thick brown "smoky fog" you see mostly in the old pictures is smog.
"Smog is a problem in a number of cities and continues to harm human health.[3] Ground-level ozone is especially harmful for senior citizens, children, and people with heart and lung conditions such as emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma[4]. It can inflame breathing passages, decreasing the lung's working capacity, and causing shortness of breath, pain when inhaling deeply, wheezing, and coughing. It can cause eye and nose irritation and it dries out the protective membranes of the nose and throat and interferes with the body's ability to fight infection, increasing susceptibility to illness. Hospital admissions and respiratory deaths often increase during periods when ozone levels are high"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog)
Smog is a serious pollutant and danger to health, and although most cities are improving, there is still a lot we can and should do to reduce it further. As you point out, that is exactly what zero emission vehicles do. They allow you to generate the energy at power plants outside the cities, where the pollution will be less concentrated and effect fewer people, instead of having areas of very concentrated pollution over the areas where the most people live.
Don't confuse CO2 with pollution. CO2 is harmless to people and ecosystems (although some think it may cause the planet to get warmer), but real pollution is all the other stuff that we know is harmful to people, plants, or animals. The Clean Air Act was designed to combat this real pollution, to benefit public health - and is probably the only thing the American government has done in the last 50 years that actually has benefited public health.
I think the poster confused a dutch oven with a pressure cooker, which (according to wikipedia) was invented by a Frenchman. BTW, the car is actually made in France.
That's exactly my point. A culture that considers CO2 the most dangerous "pollutant" that we have to worry about, is truly insane. CO2 is about as much of a pollutant as water is. In high enough doses, both will kill you, but the amounts released by man have no effect on public health whatsoever.
I wish we had a symbol for sarcasm like the question mark or exclamation point. How about the percent sign. It would go like this:
While we're on the topic of CO2 pollution, I'd like to complain about all the H2O pollution% I live in what used to be a desert, but the unrestrained release of H2O into the local environment has totally destroyed it% Everywhere I go, I see people just spraying H2O right onto the ground% The damage caused by this is obvious% Instead of rocks and sage brush, everywhere I look, I see grass, flowers, shrubs, and trees%
OK, that looks kind of funny.
Slashdot Mirror
What if you ever want to remove the processor. You can't remove the processor with the heat-sink still attached on my AMD system.
"I do all my e-commerce shopping and YouTube-watching at work" was cited by 14 percent of Internet-access refuseniks. So, many people don't have home internet because they are unemployed/underemployed. And almost as many people don't need home internet because they have jobs where they spend all day on the internet instead of working.
Well, all this reading makes me feel like going outside for a walk. Bye
...it makes it to easy for cats to catch them.
My question is, why does windows use the swap file, even when I have plenty of free physical memory.
It's probably dirty. To clean it, deflate her and wash with warm soapy water, then hang up to air dry.
Boy, I should get a Mac. Then maybe I can can get women who self mutilate themselves and have the bodies of twelve year olds.
5 bottles, apparently.
Notice the "funny" mod?
Frogs? Fish? Bats?
[looks below] Oh, I thought there were vaccines for malaria. Then what were those pills they gave soldiers in Vietnam?
Yeah. Considering there have been vaccines for malaria for decades, why are they doing this research?
I've never seen a cow that could catch a dog
And please, don't call me Shirley
First, you claim that this would make a "killer car" for Americans, then you claim that you would never drive it because it is unsafe. I can only assume by "killer car," you mean that it would cause lots of people to be killed, and you think this would be good, as long as those people aren't you or your family.
Second, an M1A1 tank would be one of the most unsafe vehicles in the world (unless, of course, you're in a war and people are trying to kill you). Have you ever seen the inside of one of those things? You would be surrounded by steel all right, lots of hard, sharp, protruding pieces of steel. I would rather go over Niagara Falls in a barrel, than be in one of those when it crashes. Not only that, but it would be very difficult to drive, especially in a city, meaning you'd be more likely to wreck it.
But thats the problem isn't it. No matter what the crash tests say, most people just feel safer in a larger vehicle. Show them all the evidence you want that a Chevy Malibu is safer than a 1500, and they will shrug it off and listen to their gut instinct anyway. Personally, it doesn't bother me. You want to put your family in danger so they feel safe, be my guest. What does bother me, is when drivers of large vehicles have the attitude "don't think about forcing me off the road. I know I will win that fight against all those little sedans/commuter cars." If I have the right-of-way, you will not win. Drivers of large vehicles often seem to think they can intimidate smaller cars, but I have not met one yet who would actually hit my car (although a few have come within inches) when I had the right-of-way. Sucks too, because I could really use a new paint job. Though with my luck, when it finally does happen, they probably won't have insurance.
I hear that. I've only ever been in one two car accident - it was pretty minor - and we were both at fault. However, I have probably prevented dozens, even hundreds, of accidents that other people tried to cause. I say "prevented" as opposed to "avoided" because I actively took action to avoid them, and my actions protected others from their own incompetence as much as they protected me.
Whhhhhhhiiiiiizzzzzzz
"Smog is a problem in a number of cities and continues to harm human health.[3] Ground-level ozone is especially harmful for senior citizens, children, and people with heart and lung conditions such as emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma[4]. It can inflame breathing passages, decreasing the lung's working capacity, and causing shortness of breath, pain when inhaling deeply, wheezing, and coughing. It can cause eye and nose irritation and it dries out the protective membranes of the nose and throat and interferes with the body's ability to fight infection, increasing susceptibility to illness. Hospital admissions and respiratory deaths often increase during periods when ozone levels are high"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog)
Smog is a serious pollutant and danger to health, and although most cities are improving, there is still a lot we can and should do to reduce it further. As you point out, that is exactly what zero emission vehicles do. They allow you to generate the energy at power plants outside the cities, where the pollution will be less concentrated and effect fewer people, instead of having areas of very concentrated pollution over the areas where the most people live.
Don't confuse CO2 with pollution. CO2 is harmless to people and ecosystems (although some think it may cause the planet to get warmer), but real pollution is all the other stuff that we know is harmful to people, plants, or animals. The Clean Air Act was designed to combat this real pollution, to benefit public health - and is probably the only thing the American government has done in the last 50 years that actually has benefited public health.
I think the poster confused a dutch oven with a pressure cooker, which (according to wikipedia) was invented by a Frenchman. BTW, the car is actually made in France.
That's exactly my point. A culture that considers CO2 the most dangerous "pollutant" that we have to worry about, is truly insane. CO2 is about as much of a pollutant as water is. In high enough doses, both will kill you, but the amounts released by man have no effect on public health whatsoever.
I wish we had a symbol for sarcasm like the question mark or exclamation point. How about the percent sign. It would go like this:
While we're on the topic of CO2 pollution, I'd like to complain about all the H2O pollution% I live in what used to be a desert, but the unrestrained release of H2O into the local environment has totally destroyed it% Everywhere I go, I see people just spraying H2O right onto the ground% The damage caused by this is obvious% Instead of rocks and sage brush, everywhere I look, I see grass, flowers, shrubs, and trees%
OK, that looks kind of funny.