The ASIO implementation on most on-board chipsets (that I have used) is atrocious to the point of being unusable.
If you're going to use ASIO then you a) usually know what you do, and b) will NOT use onboard sound unless you absolutely have to on a temporary basis (i.e. someone elses computer) and then the result will suck pretty bad.
Well, to be fair, the ASIO implementation on most audio devices sucks pretty bad, in general. You have to go with relatively high-end stuff before you start getting reasonable latencies and response.
And this is exactly why noone in their right mind will try to use ASIO with creative products. They may be upper mid-range, but they are certainly not high-end
>Perhaps one could be built under the police department in a good sized city?
He, that would be a new form of deterrent against crime.
"No officer, please, don't arrest me, I don't want to get radiation poisoning. Really, I didn't mean to rob that bank."
"Well, I get to wear a lead west. You don't. Tough luck. Har Har"
"NOOOOOOOOooooooooooo.........."
But seriously, at 200 kilowatt output, that reactor would be sufficient to power 100 Houses, maybe 150 if they're real energy savers. Hardly enough for a "good sized city". And it didn't say if that was 200 kW thermal or 200 kW electrical (electrical output is always smaller than thermal output because of conversion losses)
For me, assertions like "It will not overheat" (from nextenergynews.com, as linked in the article) sound too much like those made by generations of overconfident and eager-to-sell engineers before to feel any confidence over them at all.
On the contrary, oversimplified blanket statements like those are engineering's way of telling us to trust them unconditionally because we are too dumb to understand what's really going on anyway. Time and again the complexity of the laws of nature has proven those assertions wrong and has shown us that engineers and companies are not as smart and above error as they'd like to make themselfes believe.
So in reality, such assertions must be triggers for everyone to not trust the engineers, have a closer look and analyze the risks themselfes and get a lot more opinions and analyses from different and independent sources before drawing any conclusions, particularily when it's about machinery where failure can have such grave consequences as with nuclear reactors.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to use ASIO then you a) usually know what you do, and b) will NOT use onboard sound unless you absolutely have to on a temporary basis (i.e. someone elses computer) and then the result will suck pretty bad.
Well, to be fair, the ASIO implementation on most audio devices sucks pretty bad, in general. You have to go with relatively high-end stuff before you start getting reasonable latencies and response.
And this is exactly why noone in their right mind will try to use ASIO with creative products. They may be upper mid-range, but they are certainly not high-end>Perhaps one could be built under the police department in a good sized city?
He, that would be a new form of deterrent against crime.
"No officer, please, don't arrest me, I don't want to get radiation poisoning. Really, I didn't mean to rob that bank."
"Well, I get to wear a lead west. You don't. Tough luck. Har Har"
"NOOOOOOOOooooooooooo.........."
But seriously, at 200 kilowatt output, that reactor would be sufficient to power 100 Houses, maybe 150 if they're real energy savers. Hardly enough for a "good sized city". And it didn't say if that was 200 kW thermal or 200 kW electrical (electrical output is always smaller than thermal output because of conversion losses)
"It is unsinkable". Sounds familiar?
For me, assertions like "It will not overheat" (from nextenergynews.com, as linked in the article) sound too much like those made by generations of overconfident and eager-to-sell engineers before to feel any confidence over them at all.
On the contrary, oversimplified blanket statements like those are engineering's way of telling us to trust them unconditionally because we are too dumb to understand what's really going on anyway. Time and again the complexity of the laws of nature has proven those assertions wrong and has shown us that engineers and companies are not as smart and above error as they'd like to make themselfes believe.
So in reality, such assertions must be triggers for everyone to not trust the engineers, have a closer look and analyze the risks themselfes and get a lot more opinions and analyses from different and independent sources before drawing any conclusions, particularily when it's about machinery where failure can have such grave consequences as with nuclear reactors.