No it isn't. I can buy a 3TB hard drive that will last for at least the next five years for like $100. Dropbox charges $10/month for only 100GB of space, which works out to 1/30th the space at $600 for five years. With a hard drive, I always have access to my data, even if my internet connection goes out or I am in a location without a connection.
<cynicism>Hard drives are guaranteed to not fail for at least 5 years? News to me. Even ignoring premature failure, most warranties these days are 1-3 years.</cynicism>
On the other hand, assuming you've got local backups, I mostly agree with you.
We use that conversion here (New Zealand) and it makes a whole lot more sense since I can see precisely how much less fuel this will use compared with my current car which gets around 9L/100Km. Basically, this goes 10x further per gallon than a typical family wagon.
So... it makes more sense to use L/100k, and then you go and talk about distance per gallon? Please hand in your kiwi card on your way out.
1920x1200 still comes off worse than 2560x1080 in total number of pixels, and thus, for the same DPI, you can still sacrifice height by going overboard with width and advertise a higher total area. As someone who cares about height more than width, area by itself isn't overly useful to me.
Much the same way that 1280x720 is supposedly a higher resolution than 1024x768 and yet the former isn't supported properly in Windows 8 (Metro apps refuse to run, it complains that the resolution is too low).
Sitting on the underside of the stand are a pair of DisplayPorts. With the front of the panel facing you, the left DisplayPort serves as an input and the right is an output, which allows you to daisychain multiple monitors.
Uh... I looked at the photos and one is HDMI. The port that they claim is HDMI on the side of the stand? That's DisplayPort.
According to the AOC data sheet, it should have 2 HDMI ports total, but the product manual only shows 1. Something strange is afoot.
If you had been paying any attention to the barrage of people telling you that electric cars aren't good for the environment, you'd have heard that the production of the batteries is bad for the environment. You seem to have completely ignored that point from your comment. Still, electric cars are definitely a step in the right direction, we can't be stuck on petrol forever.
How do you find the velomobile compares to a road bike? More useful, less useful, or just different?
It's very useful for one single reason: I never have to worry about the weather, and what to wear when it rains, or having to change when I arrive at work in the morning. Also, I can carry a ton of stuff inside, which is great for getting groceries and for touring. And it's quite a bit faster than a road bike on average too. The only downside is, it climbs like a pig. The time lost on the uphill is recovered when going back down, but I ain't gonna race someone going up.
This magical modification of a bike somehow eliminates perspiration?
And for many people, public/mass transit works just fine. Are you suggesting that since it can't work for everyone, we shouldn't bother with aiming to utilise it better for a net efficiency increase?
I guess some random can just say anything and assume it has more merit than someone else's experiences. Given I'm also a random, we're at an impasse here.:)
In this case, they're an AC and you're not so you get to pull rank;)
But take for example the Radeon driver (the so called open source one). It takes almost a meg of
main memory. The closed source one takes even more memory. Its running all the time that
your system is up.
Clearly its not just firmware we are talking about here.
The main memory aspect is taken up by the open source driver code. The firmware blob goes straight to the hardware.
Perhaps. I haven't run the AMD proprietary drivers for a while.
When I did, I seem to recall a large binary always running.
The blobs we're talking about here are NOT the AMD proprietary drivers, we're talking about the firmware blobs that the community drivers have to send to the cards at initialization.
So how trivial will it be to slurp the OS out onto a AMD card enabled PC and have our own "HackStation4"?
I'm assuming they meant using an AMD based PC because the drivers already in the PS4 OS might be compatible (which is not particularly likely). Alternatively if you want NVIDIA, they already have an official driver for FreeBSD that you could try hacking into Orbis. Neither case requires a custom Linux-FreeBSD shim.
But it might be 4 times as fast as what you're running now, especially if you skipped a generation of Intel CPU. Is it four times as fast as Sandy Bridge? Nehalem?
You seem to have completely missed my point. I said Haswell doesn't change anything with regards to thermal challenges in building such SFF systems, the point of comparison is to Ivy Bridge. And it's certainly not even remotely close to being 4 times faster than Nehalem.
Say your old machine can do 60 fps at a given heat rate, but the new one can do 240 fps.
Haswell is not 4 times faster than Ivy Bridge. Also, most modern games struggle to get over 60fps - even on an older game like Crysis: Warhead, the Titan behemoth card can't break 60fps at 1080p max settings. If you're running a low end game at 240fps, then you're better off with an AMD Fusion chip to save on power consumption over an NVIDIA 670.
And that's ignoring that modern multithreaded game engines tend to decouple the render loop and gameplay loop so vsync doesn't necessarily cause the CPU to idle.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume I'm completely wrong on all points above. Let's do some rough math. 25% of the time running at load TDP and 75% at idle... My i5-3570k Ivy Bridge tends to idle around 20W (max TDP 77W), so that's averaging 0.25*77 + 0.75*20 for an average of 34.25W. Haswell has a higher TDP at load, i5-4670k rated around 88W. AnandTech have done power consumption benchmarks which indicates that the Haswell platform as a whole idles 10W lower overall, which includes power savings in the chipset and other motherboard aspects but let's call that a 10W CPU idle. Average power consumption would be 0.25*88 + 0.75*10 for an average of 29.5W. A savings of 5W due to Haswell in your scenario pales in comparison to the 170W NVIDIA 670 sitting in the corner, so no, even then Haswell doesn't change the thermal envelope appreciably such that these SFF platforms suddenly become viable. Besides, they still need to be built to cool the system under full load conditions anyway and that certainly hasn't changed.
but until now, squeezing in components that were powerful enough for the enthusiast gamer was a significant thermal challenge. Intel's recent Haswell Core processor release, as well as NVIDIA's GeForce 670 series graphics cards have changed the game considerably though
Uh... Haswell doesn't change anything in this regard. Haswell doesn't change the thermal envelope under load, which is what it's doing when gaming. It only reduces power consumption under idle conditions.
I've studied thermodynamics and I'm aware of how the various refrigeration cycles work. My point is that the now widespread vapor-compression cycle does not use a heating element, the old deprecated vapor absorption cycle is what used a heating element of some kind (such as a kerosene wick).
I'm sure there's a wikipedia article you can read before trying to "correct" people with ignorant gut instinct. If not just google "refridgeration cycle".
In the 1950s my parents has a kerosene fridge - heat input from a wick to keep the gas moving and the compressor was a tank of water with the ammonia pipes going through it. Just like the modern ones it's using heat as the power source. The modern ones have an electrical resistance heating element instead of a kerosene wick.
You mean like this one? Modern ones use a compressor, they don't use a heating element.
Slashdot Mirror
No it isn't. I can buy a 3TB hard drive that will last for at least the next five years for like $100. Dropbox charges $10/month for only 100GB of space, which works out to 1/30th the space at $600 for five years. With a hard drive, I always have access to my data, even if my internet connection goes out or I am in a location without a connection.
<cynicism>Hard drives are guaranteed to not fail for at least 5 years? News to me. Even ignoring premature failure, most warranties these days are 1-3 years.</cynicism>
On the other hand, assuming you've got local backups, I mostly agree with you.
We use that conversion here (New Zealand) and it makes a whole lot more sense since I can see precisely how much less fuel this will use compared with my current car which gets around 9L/100Km. Basically, this goes 10x further per gallon than a typical family wagon.
So... it makes more sense to use L/100k, and then you go and talk about distance per gallon? Please hand in your kiwi card on your way out.
Except Windows is not *enjoyable*; its universally hated.
Speak for yourself, it's not universally hated. I doubt even the majority hates it, since people keep using it.
So, it has come to this.
You ran out of cat food?
1920x1200 still comes off worse than 2560x1080 in total number of pixels, and thus, for the same DPI, you can still sacrifice height by going overboard with width and advertise a higher total area. As someone who cares about height more than width, area by itself isn't overly useful to me.
Much the same way that 1280x720 is supposedly a higher resolution than 1024x768 and yet the former isn't supported properly in Windows 8 (Metro apps refuse to run, it complains that the resolution is too low).
Sitting on the underside of the stand are a pair of DisplayPorts. With the front of the panel facing you, the left DisplayPort serves as an input and the right is an output, which allows you to daisychain multiple monitors.
Uh... I looked at the photos and one is HDMI. The port that they claim is HDMI on the side of the stand? That's DisplayPort.
According to the AOC data sheet, it should have 2 HDMI ports total, but the product manual only shows 1. Something strange is afoot.
That still doesn't discourage sacrificing height by going overboard with width.
If you had been paying any attention to the barrage of people telling you that electric cars aren't good for the environment, you'd have heard that the production of the batteries is bad for the environment. You seem to have completely ignored that point from your comment. Still, electric cars are definitely a step in the right direction, we can't be stuck on petrol forever.
How do you find the velomobile compares to a road bike? More useful, less useful, or just different?
It's very useful for one single reason: I never have to worry about the weather, and what to wear when it rains, or having to change when I arrive at work in the morning. Also, I can carry a ton of stuff inside, which is great for getting groceries and for touring. And it's quite a bit faster than a road bike on average too. The only downside is, it climbs like a pig. The time lost on the uphill is recovered when going back down, but I ain't gonna race someone going up.
This magical modification of a bike somehow eliminates perspiration?
And for many people, public/mass transit works just fine. Are you suggesting that since it can't work for everyone, we shouldn't bother with aiming to utilise it better for a net efficiency increase?
The only effective way to give less oil money to Saudi Arabia is to buy less oil (and oil-derived products).
Or declare war and steal it.
I guess some random can just say anything and assume it has more merit than someone else's experiences. Given I'm also a random, we're at an impasse here. :)
In this case, they're an AC and you're not so you get to pull rank ;)
But take for example the Radeon driver (the so called open source one). It takes almost a meg of main memory. The closed source one takes even more memory. Its running all the time that your system is up.
Clearly its not just firmware we are talking about here.
The main memory aspect is taken up by the open source driver code. The firmware blob goes straight to the hardware.
Perhaps. I haven't run the AMD proprietary drivers for a while. When I did, I seem to recall a large binary always running.
The blobs we're talking about here are NOT the AMD proprietary drivers, we're talking about the firmware blobs that the community drivers have to send to the cards at initialization.
So how trivial will it be to slurp the OS out onto a AMD card enabled PC and have our own "HackStation4"?
I'm assuming they meant using an AMD based PC because the drivers already in the PS4 OS might be compatible (which is not particularly likely). Alternatively if you want NVIDIA, they already have an official driver for FreeBSD that you could try hacking into Orbis. Neither case requires a custom Linux-FreeBSD shim.
My guess is they're wondering how easy it would be to pirate PS4 games on PC hardware.
You would have to write a wrapper around the FreeBSD driver apis for Linux (this may already exist).
Why? You could just run FreeBSD on that PC instead of Linux.
It wouldn't be the first time a PR guy has lied.
I'm sure knowing that is going to make the millions of ruralites feel much better about the situation knowing they're taking one for the team.
Lulea is pretty much at sea level.
Haswell is not 4 times faster than Ivy Bridge.
But it might be 4 times as fast as what you're running now, especially if you skipped a generation of Intel CPU. Is it four times as fast as Sandy Bridge? Nehalem?
You seem to have completely missed my point. I said Haswell doesn't change anything with regards to thermal challenges in building such SFF systems, the point of comparison is to Ivy Bridge. And it's certainly not even remotely close to being 4 times faster than Nehalem.
Say your old machine can do 60 fps at a given heat rate, but the new one can do 240 fps.
Haswell is not 4 times faster than Ivy Bridge. Also, most modern games struggle to get over 60fps - even on an older game like Crysis: Warhead, the Titan behemoth card can't break 60fps at 1080p max settings. If you're running a low end game at 240fps, then you're better off with an AMD Fusion chip to save on power consumption over an NVIDIA 670.
And that's ignoring that modern multithreaded game engines tend to decouple the render loop and gameplay loop so vsync doesn't necessarily cause the CPU to idle.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume I'm completely wrong on all points above. Let's do some rough math. 25% of the time running at load TDP and 75% at idle... My i5-3570k Ivy Bridge tends to idle around 20W (max TDP 77W), so that's averaging 0.25*77 + 0.75*20 for an average of 34.25W. Haswell has a higher TDP at load, i5-4670k rated around 88W. AnandTech have done power consumption benchmarks which indicates that the Haswell platform as a whole idles 10W lower overall, which includes power savings in the chipset and other motherboard aspects but let's call that a 10W CPU idle. Average power consumption would be 0.25*88 + 0.75*10 for an average of 29.5W. A savings of 5W due to Haswell in your scenario pales in comparison to the 170W NVIDIA 670 sitting in the corner, so no, even then Haswell doesn't change the thermal envelope appreciably such that these SFF platforms suddenly become viable. Besides, they still need to be built to cool the system under full load conditions anyway and that certainly hasn't changed.
but until now, squeezing in components that were powerful enough for the enthusiast gamer was a significant thermal challenge. Intel's recent Haswell Core processor release, as well as NVIDIA's GeForce 670 series graphics cards have changed the game considerably though
Uh... Haswell doesn't change anything in this regard. Haswell doesn't change the thermal envelope under load, which is what it's doing when gaming. It only reduces power consumption under idle conditions.
I've studied thermodynamics and I'm aware of how the various refrigeration cycles work. My point is that the now widespread vapor-compression cycle does not use a heating element, the old deprecated vapor absorption cycle is what used a heating element of some kind (such as a kerosene wick).
I'm sure there's a wikipedia article you can read before trying to "correct" people with ignorant gut instinct. If not just google "refridgeration cycle". In the 1950s my parents has a kerosene fridge - heat input from a wick to keep the gas moving and the compressor was a tank of water with the ammonia pipes going through it. Just like the modern ones it's using heat as the power source. The modern ones have an electrical resistance heating element instead of a kerosene wick.
You mean like this one? Modern ones use a compressor, they don't use a heating element.