Most televisions will accept analog audio from an HDMI input. The problem is that some TVs will not allow you manually manage this input, and will switch to it depending on whether the HDMI signal carries audio. Some DVI outputs are actually using HDMI capable TMDS transmitters, and potentially sending an empty audio stream to the TV over the DVI output. In the past, I have had to force-feed the nVidia X11 drivers a forged EDID block to make it think the television did not have audio capability, so it didn't try to send audio out the DVI port and prevent the use of analog audio on the television.
If you are using content with the ICT enabled, and a system that supports ICT, you're going to have the same quality issues with VGA as you would HDMI.
Anyone who hasn't tried to run a modern browser with modern dynamic web pages on one.
That's sarcasm, right?
Yes. I was implying that anyone who still thinks a 1.3GHz Athlon is still usable as a desktop clearly hasn't tried to access any complex web pages with one, giving my laptop as an example of why trying to do so is painful at best.
Anyone who hasn't tried to run a modern browser with modern dynamic web pages on one. I still use my old 1GHz P3 laptop. With a UXGA screen, it makes for a great X terminal (although a less than portable one with only a couple minutes of battery life). Anything Flash or JS heavy very quickly brings it to a crawl.
In other words, you're looking at under a thousand dollars per second to run the rocket motor, and about half a million for the total burn. Fuel is cheap, the real cost is in the vehicles themselves. That was the whole reason the Shuttle was supposed to be reusable. Had the Shuttle worked as intended, we would be looking at payload costs on the order of $2000/kg rather than the $20000+/kg it saw in practice. The problem with the Shuttle was the costly inspection and refurbishment after each flight.
According to the data on wiki it's bigger, heavier, produces less thrust than the J-2S therefore causing it's thrust to weight ratio to be less than BOTH the J-2 and J-2S.
Bigger, heavier, and less power-to-weight, however it is more powerful and more efficient. That's all fairly irrelevant. Fuel is cheap, rocket motors are expensive. The original J-2 damned the cost to beat the Ruskies. The RS-25 was recovered with the Shuttle, although that had to be rebuilt after each launch and didn't work out as planned. The J-2X is redesigned using less exotic materials and less complex construction methods. It is supposed to be cheaper, so it is less of a problem to be disposable. Whether this pans out and saves enough to be worth the additional development cost is yet to be seen.
I shouldn't expect much of a comment from someone who has a ID number in the tens of millions.
Huh? Anonymous cowards don't get ID numbers, and even then, new users are in the high two million range.
If the servers all run the same hardware, then you only have to tune one server. If the servers are all independent, then the problem is that you grew several hundred servers organically, rather than planning out ahead of time.
Virtualization is critical? Unless you want to run applications on a different operating system, or want to sandbox machines for development, what purpose could a desktop user possibly have for virtualizing anything?
There are only two drawbacks of multiple filesystems. Moving files between filesystems means you have to read and write back out the file, rather than simply altering an index. Use of things like NFS that are aware of filesystem levels for security purposes become more complicated. Do understand that filesystems in ZFS draw from a shared storage pool. It's not like a traditional partition where you are restricting access to disk space.
I use schroot for the usecase you use ezjail for, and from your short note it looks mostly equivalent. I tend to use either a btrfs or lvm backend.
Chroot is just filesystem isolation. It was never intended for security purposes, and can be trivially breached. Jails provide real OS and memory isolation, dedicated addresses, and even dedicated network devices and stacks. It's more analogous to Solaris Containers and Linux LXC.
Having an integrated filesystem and volume manager affords certain capabilities that LVM cannot do. Without looking deeply at the implemented capabilities, BtrFS should be comparable to ZFS. The reason for multiple filesystems is to allow independent management of each. One with primarily text files could have compression enabled. One with important data could specify multiple duplicates, which makes sure those files are stored on multiple zvols in case one fails. If nothing else, it allows you to maintain independent snapshot strategies for different directories.
The digital revolution changed nothing with regards to copyrights. What it allowed was making it cheap and easy for consumers to do what they want with their own property, rather than being restricted to only doing what the copyright owners want. When the consumers can continually migrate their content from one medium to the next, there is no need to repeatedly purchase it, and copyright owners no longer have that continued revenue stream, making copyrights less relevant in the long term. It has brought copyrights back in line with their original intent, rather than this perpetual farce Disney pushes legislation for every couple decades.
Writing music, performing it, recording it, and mastering it all takes time, effort, and skill. Since the product can be duplicated indefinitely with minimal cost, each unit trends toward zero value as the number of units approaches infinity. Congratulations, you just used a small bit of your high school education, applying calculus improperly to the real world.
You are missing the fact that the initial investment in the production of that data was not zero. Those involved in its creation need to be paid for their efforts, so they can buy food and clothing and shelter, and continue to survive to put forth effort into creation of new data. If they don't get paid, then they are going to expend their efforts elsewhere in some activity with real gain. That means, if you don't pay for music, then there will be no more music for you to not pay for.
I was under the impression concert workers were employed by the band directly, or by a third organization putting on the concert, and had no obligation to the record companies.
Nevermind. You're saying everyone is bypassing the Cleanfeed system using a handful of proxies, so those proxies get overloaded and shut out in a matter of minutes.
Back in the early days of Napster, CD burners and blank media were expensive. Between that and a jewel case, you had to be charging a couple bucks just to break even. They could have gone to the record store and picked through the used bin for just as much.
Kilowatt hours (kWh) is a measure of energy, and costs however much your local power utility charges you. I did say that €6 did sound like a reasonable utility charge for 20-50kWh of energy. However, you did not say kWh, you said kW, a measure of instantaneous power. Not only that but you specifically said it was power and not energy.
The cost of instantaneous power is the cost of whatever device you use to provide that power. That could be a bank of capacitors, a bank of batteries, an engine hooked up to a generator, a link to the utility company rated for that much power, or something else like that. My point is that I doubt you could build anything for under €6 capable of outputting 20kW of electrical power.
I was pedantically correcting your use of words, because any time any story about power consumption ever comes up, people always seem to use power and energy interchangeably. It is a personal hatred that does not allow me to sleep at night because someone is wrong on the internet.
20-50kW of power is going to cost you a lot more than six euros. 200A two phase run from the nearby transformer, plus a breaker and distribution panel wired to code, is going to cost you a couple thousand. Car batteries are good for 6-8kW each, so you could probably get by with 300-500 euros that route. A smallish capacitor bank would likely be the cheapest route to that much power, but isn't going to last long.
Now at US electricity rates, you're looking at around €0.06/kWh. I've heard European rates can be double to triple that, so 20-50kWh of energy does sound reasonable, but then energy is not power. €12/hr means the thing draws somewhere around 40-100kW of power just to hover.
Public education. You don't stabilize satellites with RCS jets. You use reaction wheels, or CMGs, or you just spin the whole thing up. RCS jets are fine for something like the shuttle and other low endurance space craft. For anything that stays up for years, you don't want to be wasting precious fuel for anything other than station keeping and potential orbit transfers.
Slashdot Mirror
In other news, PETA reverses their stance on wearing fur and starts hunting down racoons en masse. Flight testing planned to commence next week.
Locked out? Of what? HDCP doesn't engage unless you have software telling the hardware to enforce it.
To be fair, Intel's graphics drivers are all open source. The fit-PCs use a PowerVR graphics core, rebranded as a GMA500.
Most televisions will accept analog audio from an HDMI input. The problem is that some TVs will not allow you manually manage this input, and will switch to it depending on whether the HDMI signal carries audio. Some DVI outputs are actually using HDMI capable TMDS transmitters, and potentially sending an empty audio stream to the TV over the DVI output. In the past, I have had to force-feed the nVidia X11 drivers a forged EDID block to make it think the television did not have audio capability, so it didn't try to send audio out the DVI port and prevent the use of analog audio on the television.
DVI ouptuts work just fine with HDMI inputs.
If you are using content with the ICT enabled, and a system that supports ICT, you're going to have the same quality issues with VGA as you would HDMI.
Anyone who hasn't tried to run a modern browser with modern dynamic web pages on one.
That's sarcasm, right?
Yes. I was implying that anyone who still thinks a 1.3GHz Athlon is still usable as a desktop clearly hasn't tried to access any complex web pages with one, giving my laptop as an example of why trying to do so is painful at best.
Anyone who hasn't tried to run a modern browser with modern dynamic web pages on one. I still use my old 1GHz P3 laptop. With a UXGA screen, it makes for a great X terminal (although a less than portable one with only a couple minutes of battery life). Anything Flash or JS heavy very quickly brings it to a crawl.
1310kN (thrust) / 448s (specific impulse) = 298kg/s exhaust mass flow rate
298kg/s * 1/9 = 33kg/s hydrogen mass flow rate * $5.50/kg = $181.50/s
298kg/s * 8/9 = 265kg/s oxygen mass flow rate * $3/kg = $795/s
$181.50/s + $795.00/s = $976.50/s
In other words, you're looking at under a thousand dollars per second to run the rocket motor, and about half a million for the total burn. Fuel is cheap, the real cost is in the vehicles themselves. That was the whole reason the Shuttle was supposed to be reusable. Had the Shuttle worked as intended, we would be looking at payload costs on the order of $2000/kg rather than the $20000+/kg it saw in practice. The problem with the Shuttle was the costly inspection and refurbishment after each flight.
According to the data on wiki it's bigger, heavier, produces less thrust than the J-2S therefore causing it's thrust to weight ratio to be less than BOTH the J-2 and J-2S.
Bigger, heavier, and less power-to-weight, however it is more powerful and more efficient. That's all fairly irrelevant. Fuel is cheap, rocket motors are expensive. The original J-2 damned the cost to beat the Ruskies. The RS-25 was recovered with the Shuttle, although that had to be rebuilt after each launch and didn't work out as planned. The J-2X is redesigned using less exotic materials and less complex construction methods. It is supposed to be cheaper, so it is less of a problem to be disposable. Whether this pans out and saves enough to be worth the additional development cost is yet to be seen.
I shouldn't expect much of a comment from someone who has a ID number in the tens of millions.
Huh? Anonymous cowards don't get ID numbers, and even then, new users are in the high two million range.
If the servers all run the same hardware, then you only have to tune one server. If the servers are all independent, then the problem is that you grew several hundred servers organically, rather than planning out ahead of time.
Virtualization is critical? Unless you want to run applications on a different operating system, or want to sandbox machines for development, what purpose could a desktop user possibly have for virtualizing anything?
There are only two drawbacks of multiple filesystems. Moving files between filesystems means you have to read and write back out the file, rather than simply altering an index. Use of things like NFS that are aware of filesystem levels for security purposes become more complicated. Do understand that filesystems in ZFS draw from a shared storage pool. It's not like a traditional partition where you are restricting access to disk space.
I use schroot for the usecase you use ezjail for, and from your short note it looks mostly equivalent. I tend to use either a btrfs or lvm backend.
Chroot is just filesystem isolation. It was never intended for security purposes, and can be trivially breached. Jails provide real OS and memory isolation, dedicated addresses, and even dedicated network devices and stacks. It's more analogous to Solaris Containers and Linux LXC.
Having an integrated filesystem and volume manager affords certain capabilities that LVM cannot do. Without looking deeply at the implemented capabilities, BtrFS should be comparable to ZFS. The reason for multiple filesystems is to allow independent management of each. One with primarily text files could have compression enabled. One with important data could specify multiple duplicates, which makes sure those files are stored on multiple zvols in case one fails. If nothing else, it allows you to maintain independent snapshot strategies for different directories.
The digital revolution changed nothing with regards to copyrights. What it allowed was making it cheap and easy for consumers to do what they want with their own property, rather than being restricted to only doing what the copyright owners want. When the consumers can continually migrate their content from one medium to the next, there is no need to repeatedly purchase it, and copyright owners no longer have that continued revenue stream, making copyrights less relevant in the long term. It has brought copyrights back in line with their original intent, rather than this perpetual farce Disney pushes legislation for every couple decades.
Writing music, performing it, recording it, and mastering it all takes time, effort, and skill. Since the product can be duplicated indefinitely with minimal cost, each unit trends toward zero value as the number of units approaches infinity. Congratulations, you just used a small bit of your high school education, applying calculus improperly to the real world.
You are missing the fact that the initial investment in the production of that data was not zero. Those involved in its creation need to be paid for their efforts, so they can buy food and clothing and shelter, and continue to survive to put forth effort into creation of new data. If they don't get paid, then they are going to expend their efforts elsewhere in some activity with real gain. That means, if you don't pay for music, then there will be no more music for you to not pay for.
I was under the impression concert workers were employed by the band directly, or by a third organization putting on the concert, and had no obligation to the record companies.
Nevermind. You're saying everyone is bypassing the Cleanfeed system using a handful of proxies, so those proxies get overloaded and shut out in a matter of minutes.
You're saying all traffic from the entirety of the United Kingdom appears to the rest of the world as coming through one single IP?
Back in the early days of Napster, CD burners and blank media were expensive. Between that and a jewel case, you had to be charging a couple bucks just to break even. They could have gone to the record store and picked through the used bin for just as much.
There has to be a porn joke in there somewhere.
Kilowatt hours (kWh) is a measure of energy, and costs however much your local power utility charges you. I did say that €6 did sound like a reasonable utility charge for 20-50kWh of energy. However, you did not say kWh , you said kW , a measure of instantaneous power. Not only that but you specifically said it was power and not energy.
The cost of instantaneous power is the cost of whatever device you use to provide that power. That could be a bank of capacitors, a bank of batteries, an engine hooked up to a generator, a link to the utility company rated for that much power, or something else like that. My point is that I doubt you could build anything for under €6 capable of outputting 20kW of electrical power.
I was pedantically correcting your use of words, because any time any story about power consumption ever comes up, people always seem to use power and energy interchangeably. It is a personal hatred that does not allow me to sleep at night because someone is wrong on the internet.
20-50kW of power is going to cost you a lot more than six euros. 200A two phase run from the nearby transformer, plus a breaker and distribution panel wired to code, is going to cost you a couple thousand. Car batteries are good for 6-8kW each, so you could probably get by with 300-500 euros that route. A smallish capacitor bank would likely be the cheapest route to that much power, but isn't going to last long.
Now at US electricity rates, you're looking at around €0.06/kWh. I've heard European rates can be double to triple that, so 20-50kWh of energy does sound reasonable, but then energy is not power. €12/hr means the thing draws somewhere around 40-100kW of power just to hover.
Tempered by the fact that any such missions won't be viable until outside most, if not all, of our lifetimes.
Public education. You don't stabilize satellites with RCS jets. You use reaction wheels, or CMGs, or you just spin the whole thing up. RCS jets are fine for something like the shuttle and other low endurance space craft. For anything that stays up for years, you don't want to be wasting precious fuel for anything other than station keeping and potential orbit transfers.