Actually, the US and Great Britain are both designing new ballistic submarines, with the US's existing fleet being a 35yr old design and the newest 15yrs old. The French started building their new Triomphant class in the late 90's, with their latest entering service just last year. The Russians recently restarted their Borei class with two ships launched, and a third due out next year. The remaining five are postponed, not due to funding cuts, but because they want to redesign it significantly into a new class.
The US is not alone. Everyone, including Russia, is spending money on new nuclear hardware.
Considering the nVidia drivers and OpenGL libraries are shipped as one piece, the fact that you specifically mention 'nvidia-glx' sounds like it's some thing broken apart by the Debian wheezy package managers. I would bet they are at fault for any issues you may be having, not nVidia.
Regardless of any argument performance-wise, nVidia has been releasing reliable Linux drivers for the better part of a decade. Their OpenGL implementations work, they're standard, and they're not full of bugs. They're video playback acceleration is functional and well supported, as opposed to years of unfulfilled claims by ATI. ATI/AMD has been getting progressively better since their acquisition, but they just don't have the track record. As a MythTV developer, we can only in good conscience recommend nVidia, because for 99% of our user base, they just work. Meanwhile, our IRC channel, mailing list, and bug tracker fills up with reports of strange behavior on ATI hardware.
You can do framebuffer output with the proprietary drivers installed just fine. The issue with lack of KMS support is there's always a bit of graphical glitching as you transition between the framebuffer, and the rendered X display. KMS gives you a smooth transition from one to the other.
If you're going to forgo a significant amount of graphical performance just to remove some superficial glitching that you only ever see on boot, then you are a vain anonymous coward.
Calm down fanboy. Read a bit before you try to defend yourself. You might not sound like an angry fool.
The Radius monitors used a mercury switch. They did not use the pivot point on the stand. They would work in midair. The mercury switch is a very crude accelerometer. It won't tell you magnitude, but it will tell you if you are accelerating in a certain direction or not. A user was not likely to pick up and shake their monitor, so it served as a very simply means of figuring out what is down. If Apple had patented using an accelerometer to determine down, and use that to orient a display, it would be prior art.
The patent in question is not for the use of an accelerometer to orient a display. Rather it is the use of one particular gesture, using both thumbs, to override the orientation of a display, as chosen by gravity cues from an accelerometer. While there may be prior art (not likely due to how specific it is), that monitor does not apply, and you all are arguing about completely the wrong thing.
Surely you jest, but in fact, you are correct! What is in question here isn't the connection itself, but rather the infrastructure to handle the connection. If you are planning for the future, that means fiber. Fiber is expensive, but the cost isn't in materials, but rather labor. It costs roughly the same to run a long distance cable whether you're running one fiber, or a bundle of a hundred. Any incentives to broadband should be entirely about running new cable.
Seize all the existing phone exchange and cable headends under eminent domain. Lease space back out to anyone and everyone who wants wireline access. Any time anyone opens up the street for roadway maintenance, or gas pipeline access, or power conduit access, or runs a cherry picker, have them lay fiber. The trucks have rolled, the cost is spent, may as well get your money's worth. Run tons of fiber, run multiple lines to each home so there is spare for decades to come. The government manages the 'last mile', and gives equal access to anyone who wants it.
Individual companies will have to pay for backbone access, either by running their own lines, or buying bandwidth from someone else. They will need to provide their own hardware to stick on either end of the line between them and their customer. However, that is the easy part. No more of this mucking around with getting phone and cable companies to share their lines, because they no longer own them. No contract mandated monopolies. The consumer wins.
The summary claimed that the law would have required hosting companies would be required to collect sales tax from their customers. What that means to me is a company like Rackspace would charge Google sales tax for leasing servers. If the law were instead about having Google pay sales tax for services they provide through those servers, I don't understand why Rackspace would have any part in the matter.
How is this any different from picking up a truck or generator from an equipment rental place, or renting storage in a storage facility? You are renting time and space on the server. If the company you rented the server from is in Texas, then that company should pay Texas sales tax.
The study was on how the money was actually spent. Yes, there were some households in Montana which cost as much as $7M each to connect to. So, how does that make the spending better? In my opinion, that actually makes things worse. It's not like those areas were even lacking broadband, as they had 3G cellular access, and if nothing else could use Hughesnet. Because of how far those handful of families skew the average, that $50M spent on them could have instead been spent on some 250 other families.
It's only to delay the inevitable: the move to liquid cooling.
Why is liquid cooling inevitable? Unless you're literally pumping cold water from the mains straight through your PC, liquid is nothing more than a transport mechanism, just one more step to go through in getting heat into the surrounding air. Water just gets the heat to a remote heatsink, at which point you still suffer the same boundary layer issues the researcher claims to have fixed.
Unless you're going to run water lines into your office and pipe the heat into another room, or at least have a big radiator independent of your computer case, you're just moving the heat to a different location inside your case. Within the confines of a case, there is no reason to use water over heatpipes. Laptops have been doing this for ages. I can open up my 10yr old P3 Thinkpad to find heatpipes running from my CCFL inverter and graphics card into a central heatsink over my CPU. Motherboards started using them around five years ago, to allow the southbridge to scavenge airflow from the CPU fan, rather than requiring its own. Water cooling may be easier for your average home enthusiast to pull off, but there is absolutely no reason why a custom manufacturer or OEM couldn't start using them in their pre-configured systems. Move the power supply over top the CPU, and in its place, run a cooling channel and big heatsink along the top of the case, run all the heat from the system up there through heatpipes. Nearly identical to a water cooled setup, better performance since its phase change rather than convective, and no chance of leaks.
My big concern is that now you have a large rotating mass with extremely tight tolerances. Those are some thick blades, likely to maintain pressure and prevent detachment from the suction side, so unless they're hollow inside, this thing will be fairly heavy. If you're using a laptop, now you have a couple hundred gram mass spinning at a couple thousand RPM, and you have to mount it robustly enough that you don't impact the base when you tip the laptop.
While this may be massively more efficient than existing static heatsinks, I find the claim of 7% power reduction country wide a bit dubious. On a desktop, you use a few watts to run fans on a machine that does ~75W idle, and hundreds of watts under load. On a home AC unit, you're looking at a 150W fan cooling a several kW compressor. For industrial units, you're usually talking evaporative cooling which does not suffer such boundary layer issues.
Further, this seems a fairly complex solution just for boundary layer management. Surely the whole of the aerospace industry couldn't have come up with an easier solution. Swiftech used to make a series of spiked coolers, where the cooling surface was what looked like a bunch of machine screws. High TKE means low separation, even around the back side of a cylinder, but it was noisy and needed a decent fan to drive it. You could use a roughened blade surface to increase turbulence, increase mixing, and preventing separation. You could use a curved fin like many existing circular coolers, so pressure gradient would keep the flow attached on at least one surface. You could use a wedge with the pointed side aimed upstream, to provide positive pressure on both sides.
If you are offended by something, it's not illegal, and it's not in public view, then all you have to do is go elsewhere. It's that simple.
I find the name offensive. Not because of its connotation, but because it is a insipid attempt to use shock value to get publicity, which by this article, it has. It is no different from products that start with X, or shows like Jackass. It speaks of a grossly juvenile behavior on the part of the developers, that I have no desire to deal with. But you know what? I'm not going to complain, I'm not going to contact them and tell them how disgusting they are, or that they should be ashamed of that name. I'm simply not going to use it.
The person being offended is to blame, because they are a busy-body with nothing better to do than complain about something that does not affect them one iota.
I initially thought the same thing, and modded the parent up in response. However, look at the length of the post, and look at the post times. A relatively new user (barely a month old) managed to type up a response in under a minute. The whole thing just looks staged.
Actually, the argument is that the average user might play online for six months, using maybe 200 hours of server time. That server cost is accounted for in the original purchase price of the game. Now that user gets tired, and sells the game to someone else, who now plays for another four months and 150 hours of server time. Since the new user hasn't paid any additional, that skews the average server usage per copy up, cutting into the publisher's margins. It's a perfectly valid argument that they would claim requires a rise in initial sales cost to make up the difference.
Now the perfectly valid counterpoint to that is that the publisher should not be running game servers in the first place. If the game is good, a community will form around it and provide the servers. As long as there are users that want to play the game, there will be servers available to play on. Valve has used that model for fifteen years now, and iD used it before them (yes I realize Valve games are now locked to a Steam account and non-transferable). Releasing a dedicated server open to the public would negate any of that extra cost incurred by resold games. Of course, if they don't control the game servers, they can't force the game into obsolescence, and force purchase of the sequel.
The average consumer is on a dynamic IP address that can change at the whim of an ISP, and generally does so if their modem is taken offline for more than a few minutes. Conversely, the average business buys dedicated IPs so they can run their web servers from a static location. If the edits came from an IP range owned by the company in question, there is nothing particularly questionable about that. Their only argument would be someone else hacked their servers, and routed the changes through it, to frame them.
I agree that what Hi-Media did is wrong and unethical, but I fail to see how anything they did should be illegal or otherwise worthy of any sort of lawsuit. Sure, you can sue for anything, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be summarily thrown out of court by a judge for wasting their time.
Consider Hi-Media and this other company are both members in some private club, which has a building with publicly facing windows. As part of this club, you can hang anything you want out the windows, or remove anything from the windows. The other company hung a sign out one of the windows, and Hi-Media removed it. It's all private property, there is nothing any law (besides zoning regulations) has anything to say about it. It is up to that private club to arbitrate internally, and decide to kick out Hi-Media. No government authority should have any say over the proceedings.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the US and Great Britain are both designing new ballistic submarines, with the US's existing fleet being a 35yr old design and the newest 15yrs old. The French started building their new Triomphant class in the late 90's, with their latest entering service just last year. The Russians recently restarted their Borei class with two ships launched, and a third due out next year. The remaining five are postponed, not due to funding cuts, but because they want to redesign it significantly into a new class.
The US is not alone. Everyone, including Russia, is spending money on new nuclear hardware.
They're arguing about the wrong thing too.
Considering the nVidia drivers and OpenGL libraries are shipped as one piece, the fact that you specifically mention 'nvidia-glx' sounds like it's some thing broken apart by the Debian wheezy package managers. I would bet they are at fault for any issues you may be having, not nVidia.
Regardless of any argument performance-wise, nVidia has been releasing reliable Linux drivers for the better part of a decade. Their OpenGL implementations work, they're standard, and they're not full of bugs. They're video playback acceleration is functional and well supported, as opposed to years of unfulfilled claims by ATI. ATI/AMD has been getting progressively better since their acquisition, but they just don't have the track record. As a MythTV developer, we can only in good conscience recommend nVidia, because for 99% of our user base, they just work. Meanwhile, our IRC channel, mailing list, and bug tracker fills up with reports of strange behavior on ATI hardware.
You can do framebuffer output with the proprietary drivers installed just fine. The issue with lack of KMS support is there's always a bit of graphical glitching as you transition between the framebuffer, and the rendered X display. KMS gives you a smooth transition from one to the other.
If you're going to forgo a significant amount of graphical performance just to remove some superficial glitching that you only ever see on boot, then you are a vain anonymous coward.
Calm down fanboy. Read a bit before you try to defend yourself. You might not sound like an angry fool.
The Radius monitors used a mercury switch. They did not use the pivot point on the stand. They would work in midair. The mercury switch is a very crude accelerometer. It won't tell you magnitude, but it will tell you if you are accelerating in a certain direction or not. A user was not likely to pick up and shake their monitor, so it served as a very simply means of figuring out what is down. If Apple had patented using an accelerometer to determine down, and use that to orient a display, it would be prior art.
The patent in question is not for the use of an accelerometer to orient a display. Rather it is the use of one particular gesture, using both thumbs, to override the orientation of a display, as chosen by gravity cues from an accelerometer. While there may be prior art (not likely due to how specific it is), that monitor does not apply, and you all are arguing about completely the wrong thing.
A fancy way of saying, "We played it backwards."
Are you referring to back-scatter X-Ray imagery, or are you one of "those" types who think they are sensitive to THz waves?
Surely you jest, but in fact, you are correct! What is in question here isn't the connection itself, but rather the infrastructure to handle the connection. If you are planning for the future, that means fiber. Fiber is expensive, but the cost isn't in materials, but rather labor. It costs roughly the same to run a long distance cable whether you're running one fiber, or a bundle of a hundred. Any incentives to broadband should be entirely about running new cable.
Seize all the existing phone exchange and cable headends under eminent domain. Lease space back out to anyone and everyone who wants wireline access. Any time anyone opens up the street for roadway maintenance, or gas pipeline access, or power conduit access, or runs a cherry picker, have them lay fiber. The trucks have rolled, the cost is spent, may as well get your money's worth. Run tons of fiber, run multiple lines to each home so there is spare for decades to come. The government manages the 'last mile', and gives equal access to anyone who wants it.
Individual companies will have to pay for backbone access, either by running their own lines, or buying bandwidth from someone else. They will need to provide their own hardware to stick on either end of the line between them and their customer. However, that is the easy part. No more of this mucking around with getting phone and cable companies to share their lines, because they no longer own them. No contract mandated monopolies. The consumer wins.
The summary claimed that the law would have required hosting companies would be required to collect sales tax from their customers. What that means to me is a company like Rackspace would charge Google sales tax for leasing servers. If the law were instead about having Google pay sales tax for services they provide through those servers, I don't understand why Rackspace would have any part in the matter.
How is this any different from picking up a truck or generator from an equipment rental place, or renting storage in a storage facility? You are renting time and space on the server. If the company you rented the server from is in Texas, then that company should pay Texas sales tax.
The study was on how the money was actually spent. Yes, there were some households in Montana which cost as much as $7M each to connect to. So, how does that make the spending better? In my opinion, that actually makes things worse. It's not like those areas were even lacking broadband, as they had 3G cellular access, and if nothing else could use Hughesnet. Because of how far those handful of families skew the average, that $50M spent on them could have instead been spent on some 250 other families.
They make 20k RPM drives? Why not just buy an SSD?
It's only to delay the inevitable: the move to liquid cooling.
Why is liquid cooling inevitable? Unless you're literally pumping cold water from the mains straight through your PC, liquid is nothing more than a transport mechanism, just one more step to go through in getting heat into the surrounding air. Water just gets the heat to a remote heatsink, at which point you still suffer the same boundary layer issues the researcher claims to have fixed.
Unless you're going to run water lines into your office and pipe the heat into another room, or at least have a big radiator independent of your computer case, you're just moving the heat to a different location inside your case. Within the confines of a case, there is no reason to use water over heatpipes. Laptops have been doing this for ages. I can open up my 10yr old P3 Thinkpad to find heatpipes running from my CCFL inverter and graphics card into a central heatsink over my CPU. Motherboards started using them around five years ago, to allow the southbridge to scavenge airflow from the CPU fan, rather than requiring its own. Water cooling may be easier for your average home enthusiast to pull off, but there is absolutely no reason why a custom manufacturer or OEM couldn't start using them in their pre-configured systems. Move the power supply over top the CPU, and in its place, run a cooling channel and big heatsink along the top of the case, run all the heat from the system up there through heatpipes. Nearly identical to a water cooled setup, better performance since its phase change rather than convective, and no chance of leaks.
My big concern is that now you have a large rotating mass with extremely tight tolerances. Those are some thick blades, likely to maintain pressure and prevent detachment from the suction side, so unless they're hollow inside, this thing will be fairly heavy. If you're using a laptop, now you have a couple hundred gram mass spinning at a couple thousand RPM, and you have to mount it robustly enough that you don't impact the base when you tip the laptop.
While this may be massively more efficient than existing static heatsinks, I find the claim of 7% power reduction country wide a bit dubious. On a desktop, you use a few watts to run fans on a machine that does ~75W idle, and hundreds of watts under load. On a home AC unit, you're looking at a 150W fan cooling a several kW compressor. For industrial units, you're usually talking evaporative cooling which does not suffer such boundary layer issues.
Further, this seems a fairly complex solution just for boundary layer management. Surely the whole of the aerospace industry couldn't have come up with an easier solution. Swiftech used to make a series of spiked coolers, where the cooling surface was what looked like a bunch of machine screws. High TKE means low separation, even around the back side of a cylinder, but it was noisy and needed a decent fan to drive it. You could use a roughened blade surface to increase turbulence, increase mixing, and preventing separation. You could use a curved fin like many existing circular coolers, so pressure gradient would keep the flow attached on at least one surface. You could use a wedge with the pointed side aimed upstream, to provide positive pressure on both sides.
If you are offended by something, it's not illegal, and it's not in public view, then all you have to do is go elsewhere. It's that simple.
I find the name offensive. Not because of its connotation, but because it is a insipid attempt to use shock value to get publicity, which by this article, it has. It is no different from products that start with X, or shows like Jackass. It speaks of a grossly juvenile behavior on the part of the developers, that I have no desire to deal with. But you know what? I'm not going to complain, I'm not going to contact them and tell them how disgusting they are, or that they should be ashamed of that name. I'm simply not going to use it.
The person being offended is to blame, because they are a busy-body with nothing better to do than complain about something that does not affect them one iota.
I'm more thinking that the it would hold the stem in its mouth, and drag it along the surface above it as it swam around.
Did they just hide under the cover, or would the push the cover in the direction they wanted to go?
Would you paint them blue, with a big pod on the back for a person to ride in?
I initially thought the same thing, and modded the parent up in response. However, look at the length of the post, and look at the post times. A relatively new user (barely a month old) managed to type up a response in under a minute. The whole thing just looks staged.
Actually, the argument is that the average user might play online for six months, using maybe 200 hours of server time. That server cost is accounted for in the original purchase price of the game. Now that user gets tired, and sells the game to someone else, who now plays for another four months and 150 hours of server time. Since the new user hasn't paid any additional, that skews the average server usage per copy up, cutting into the publisher's margins. It's a perfectly valid argument that they would claim requires a rise in initial sales cost to make up the difference.
Now the perfectly valid counterpoint to that is that the publisher should not be running game servers in the first place. If the game is good, a community will form around it and provide the servers. As long as there are users that want to play the game, there will be servers available to play on. Valve has used that model for fifteen years now, and iD used it before them (yes I realize Valve games are now locked to a Steam account and non-transferable). Releasing a dedicated server open to the public would negate any of that extra cost incurred by resold games. Of course, if they don't control the game servers, they can't force the game into obsolescence, and force purchase of the sequel.
The patent was granted two months ago. Two months is well within your six month time frame.
Hovercraft are incapable of leaving ground effect, and skirted hovercraft cannot pass even moderate slopes.
The average consumer is on a dynamic IP address that can change at the whim of an ISP, and generally does so if their modem is taken offline for more than a few minutes. Conversely, the average business buys dedicated IPs so they can run their web servers from a static location. If the edits came from an IP range owned by the company in question, there is nothing particularly questionable about that. Their only argument would be someone else hacked their servers, and routed the changes through it, to frame them.
Lies. The articles are never gone. They are still taking up space in the database, and can be recovered by admins.
I agree that what Hi-Media did is wrong and unethical, but I fail to see how anything they did should be illegal or otherwise worthy of any sort of lawsuit. Sure, you can sue for anything, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be summarily thrown out of court by a judge for wasting their time.
Consider Hi-Media and this other company are both members in some private club, which has a building with publicly facing windows. As part of this club, you can hang anything you want out the windows, or remove anything from the windows. The other company hung a sign out one of the windows, and Hi-Media removed it. It's all private property, there is nothing any law (besides zoning regulations) has anything to say about it. It is up to that private club to arbitrate internally, and decide to kick out Hi-Media. No government authority should have any say over the proceedings.