HDMI is nothing more than a digital data interface. There are three data channels, but they all just carry data. They are not dedicated to any specific color. Digital crosstalk would just cause noise, and an incompletely reproduced image. The 8b/10b encoding used by HDMI means a full 20% of video data is used for error recovery, or at least detection. It is up to the receiver whether to display a damaged image or not. While you can have artifacting, and it is since the color data is carried evenly over all three data channels, there would be no preference towards any specific color. Perhaps red is what your display uses to indicate corrupt data.
I'm guessing there is something confused, as half the information on that page is for a 16->32 VGA/Component matrix switch, something that arguably could go for $25K.
No, the driving test itself is nonsense. I spent all of two minutes on real roads with no traffic, followed by another five minutes of parallel parking, turnabouts, and other maneuvers under five MPH. Testing people on their ability to negotiate a roundabout in traffic would require instituting a test that actually tested if you were worthy of driving.
One person driving slow isn't a problem. What is a problem is that people who want to drive slow tend to clump together, and they like to spread across multiple lanes. However, the majority of traffic jams are caused by the accordion effect. In dense traffic, one person lighting up their brakes will ripple through the traffic for a mile or further back, even if the first person did not actually brake hard enough to slow down. Most people only drive in reaction to the person directly in front of them, so it's at least half a second for each car to start moving again. As such, once traffic slows down, it's hard for it to speed back up.
On the opposite side, if people actually paid attention several cars up, they could start coasting as they saw traffic slow down. Slowing without brake lights is far less disruptive to traffic. If they paid attention several cars up, they could significant decrease the lag to start moving again, meaning traffic would start flowing much sooner, and much more traffic would be able to get through on a single stop light.
The.com,.net, and.edu addresses are managed by a US based entity, and part of the contract of purchasing such a domain is that you obey the laws and regulations stipulated by the United States. If you wish to do things on your website that are illegal in the US, you can either block all traffic from addresses allocated to US ISPs, or you can purchase a domain for your specific ccTLD, which is not governed by US law.
I drive along an industrial road to and from work. It's well over a mile long, straight, and the only entrances are from a handful of businesses at which you can see cars a long way off. I, and most other traffic, go well over the speed limit simply because it's perfectly safe to do so. Occasionally I come across someone going the speed limit. Occasionally among those, I find someone who pulls over to let me pass.
Now unless someone is driving stupidly slow, or needlessly sitting several cars abreast in the left lane, I don't tailgate. I maintain a comfortable distance, 2-3 car lengths, behind the next person. When I see someone pull over to let me pass, I perceive that as aberrant behavior. They were driving the speed limit (an acceptable speed by any definition), and I wasn't being aggressive towards them, so why did they get over? Is there something wrong with them? Should I expect them to do more strange things? Is there something on the road that I should follow them onto the shoulder to avoid? Was there something wrong with how I was driving? Seeing someone do such a thing throws me off, and serves nothing but to distract me from the road.
Basically, you should maintain speed with the flow of traffic, or failing that, you should maintain the speed limit. If you can maintain a reasonable speed, then you should never feel the need to let someone pass. They can wait their turn for a passing zone. If you cannot maintain a reasonable speed, then you should not be using the road (farmers on tractors, I'm looking at you).
Most people also don't understand that their proper turn at a 4-way stop is when the previous person is about halfway through. You don't have to wait until they're completely clear. You're just supposed to not hit them.
There's also the issue that there is some motivation to keep traffic inside a city. Slower moving traffic means people may stop and see a business or store they decide to check out. Slower moving traffic means you won't have people blowing through the city at unsafe speeds.
People over here never learned how to merge in close proximity. If there's not several car lengths available, they slam on the breaks and screw up the whole ramp.
The problem is that people simply don't learn. They don't look at a situation, and think of how it or they could improve. If they did, traffic jams and highway congestion would be a non-issue.
There is a lot of that over here for 3-way intersections in general. One lane is walled off and is always a through lane. The rest go through a stop light.
The problem is that it's not a round about, but more of a square about. It is designed with the intent that you will not be able to continue around it in a circle. The inside lane on one side shifts to the center lane on the next side, and continues out of the intersection. If you understand the layout, it makes perfect sense. If you've never seen it before, your instinct in the inside lane is to continue on the inside, but when the lanes seem to be forcing you out, many people will become flustered and lost.
No, they can't. Just look at the dipshits who cause problems on highway on-ramps because they can't figure out how to safely merge with traffic. Roundabouts will be the same thing, but just at lower speeds.
If I wanted to appear smart, I would correct you a second time on the use of disk, since you missed it the first time. Disc is from the Greek discus, a later adopted spelling of the term, and used to describe things you throw, like frisbees and CDs. Disk is the more traditional English spelling, and used to describe storage devices, since that is the spelling IBM chose to use when they started manufacturing disk drives 55 years ago.
I would consider this a nail in the coffin if it resulted in a drastic decrease in the use of disk drives, limiting it only to fringe applications. Flash drives have dropped in price drastically over the past decade, but due to its basic design, they're rapidly closing in on a wall, past which they cannot miniaturize it any further. This new technology is still several years away from the market, and in the mean time, hard disks will continue dropping in price, and people will continue storing all sorts of crap.
If the average consumer stops storing stuff locally, and instead migrates to the cloud, hosting companies are going to have all this data they need to store, with only modest performance requirements. The most economical way to achieve this for the foreseeable future will be disk drives. Even though the average consumer won't have disk drives in their own computers, their data will still be stored on disk drives. There will continue to be a vast market for their production.
Disk drives are being replaced by SSDs in a number of applications. SSDs win out when performance or power consumption needs are critical. Disk drives are still king in any application requiring bulk storage, and that is not due to change any time soon.
Someone is going to have to have the disks somewhere. The individual user may only have a single SSD in their device, but someone needs to provide the bulk storage.
The problem with flash memory is that it is inherently volatile. It is based off the storage of a static charge, and there is no such thing as a perfect insulator. During normal operation, you need a high current to tunnel through the insulator and store the charge, but that charge will slowly leak out on its own over time. Given enough time, the charge will drop below a threshold and be read incorrectly.
All microprocessor technologies suffer from this to some extent, and CPUs are expected to hit a wall dealing with this leakage in about 15 years. Flash memory is only expected to get one or two more process shrinks before this leakage is expected to cause problems on a useful time frame. At this point, flash memory will have to be refreshed like traditional DRAM more and more frequently. Online SSDs can afford this, but offline USB drives cannot. Now you can simply start stacking chips, but your costs will rise geometrically, and heat dissipation will become a problem. Flash will be unable to produce higher capacity at lower prices.
One of these new technologies will pan out in the near term, because with the current technology reaching the end of its life, the industry will have to transition to something new to continue to sell new product.
"if you don't think what we think and hate those brownskinned people then Yer Not A Real Amurrikkan!"
I would love to have someone say that to me in person. I wonder what their response would be when informed that brownskinned Mexicans are from America.
No. The i3 and i5 lines integrate the graphics core on the same package as the CPU. The only thing the board provides are video transmitters. Intel has not produced a chipset with graphics since the G45 and Core 2 line.
Based off the operational design of existing ION thrusters, your power source is irrelevant. Assume you have a huge solar array, and power is unlimited. The only thing that matters is how fast you can accelerate your consumable fuel source. Traditional rockets dump exhaust at thousands of meters per second. ION drives do so at tens of thousands of meters per second. Using the several billion kelven reaction temperature, and a magnetic nozzle, you're looking at exhaust velocities in the millions of meters per second. Higher exhaust velocity means higher total delta V, assuming you don't kill yourself in engine mass.
That's easy. All you have to do is beat them with it to show that they are better armored than a main battle tank, and won't be harmed by something so trivial as the detonation of several million pounds of rocket fuel.
"The specific power of the proton-triggered boron fuel would be so great that a mere mole of it (11 grams) would yield roughly 300 megawatts of power. " (!) the efficiency sounds awesome.
Come on IEEE, I expected better of you. Power output is irrelevent. We care about energy output. 11 grams of boron fuel will get you 300 megawatts for what duration?
Slashdot Mirror
HDMI is nothing more than a digital data interface. There are three data channels, but they all just carry data. They are not dedicated to any specific color. Digital crosstalk would just cause noise, and an incompletely reproduced image. The 8b/10b encoding used by HDMI means a full 20% of video data is used for error recovery, or at least detection. It is up to the receiver whether to display a damaged image or not. While you can have artifacting, and it is since the color data is carried evenly over all three data channels, there would be no preference towards any specific color. Perhaps red is what your display uses to indicate corrupt data.
I'm guessing there is something confused, as half the information on that page is for a 16->32 VGA/Component matrix switch, something that arguably could go for $25K.
No, the driving test itself is nonsense. I spent all of two minutes on real roads with no traffic, followed by another five minutes of parallel parking, turnabouts, and other maneuvers under five MPH. Testing people on their ability to negotiate a roundabout in traffic would require instituting a test that actually tested if you were worthy of driving.
One person driving slow isn't a problem. What is a problem is that people who want to drive slow tend to clump together, and they like to spread across multiple lanes. However, the majority of traffic jams are caused by the accordion effect. In dense traffic, one person lighting up their brakes will ripple through the traffic for a mile or further back, even if the first person did not actually brake hard enough to slow down. Most people only drive in reaction to the person directly in front of them, so it's at least half a second for each car to start moving again. As such, once traffic slows down, it's hard for it to speed back up.
On the opposite side, if people actually paid attention several cars up, they could start coasting as they saw traffic slow down. Slowing without brake lights is far less disruptive to traffic. If they paid attention several cars up, they could significant decrease the lag to start moving again, meaning traffic would start flowing much sooner, and much more traffic would be able to get through on a single stop light.
The .com, .net, and .edu addresses are managed by a US based entity, and part of the contract of purchasing such a domain is that you obey the laws and regulations stipulated by the United States. If you wish to do things on your website that are illegal in the US, you can either block all traffic from addresses allocated to US ISPs, or you can purchase a domain for your specific ccTLD, which is not governed by US law.
I drive along an industrial road to and from work. It's well over a mile long, straight, and the only entrances are from a handful of businesses at which you can see cars a long way off. I, and most other traffic, go well over the speed limit simply because it's perfectly safe to do so. Occasionally I come across someone going the speed limit. Occasionally among those, I find someone who pulls over to let me pass.
Now unless someone is driving stupidly slow, or needlessly sitting several cars abreast in the left lane, I don't tailgate. I maintain a comfortable distance, 2-3 car lengths, behind the next person. When I see someone pull over to let me pass, I perceive that as aberrant behavior. They were driving the speed limit (an acceptable speed by any definition), and I wasn't being aggressive towards them, so why did they get over? Is there something wrong with them? Should I expect them to do more strange things? Is there something on the road that I should follow them onto the shoulder to avoid? Was there something wrong with how I was driving? Seeing someone do such a thing throws me off, and serves nothing but to distract me from the road.
Basically, you should maintain speed with the flow of traffic, or failing that, you should maintain the speed limit. If you can maintain a reasonable speed, then you should never feel the need to let someone pass. They can wait their turn for a passing zone. If you cannot maintain a reasonable speed, then you should not be using the road (farmers on tractors, I'm looking at you).
Most people also don't understand that their proper turn at a 4-way stop is when the previous person is about halfway through. You don't have to wait until they're completely clear. You're just supposed to not hit them.
There's also the issue that there is some motivation to keep traffic inside a city. Slower moving traffic means people may stop and see a business or store they decide to check out. Slower moving traffic means you won't have people blowing through the city at unsafe speeds.
People over here never learned how to merge in close proximity. If there's not several car lengths available, they slam on the breaks and screw up the whole ramp.
The problem is that people simply don't learn. They don't look at a situation, and think of how it or they could improve. If they did, traffic jams and highway congestion would be a non-issue.
There is a lot of that over here for 3-way intersections in general. One lane is walled off and is always a through lane. The rest go through a stop light.
The problem is that it's not a round about, but more of a square about. It is designed with the intent that you will not be able to continue around it in a circle. The inside lane on one side shifts to the center lane on the next side, and continues out of the intersection. If you understand the layout, it makes perfect sense. If you've never seen it before, your instinct in the inside lane is to continue on the inside, but when the lanes seem to be forcing you out, many people will become flustered and lost.
Um, people can learn....right?
No, they can't. Just look at the dipshits who cause problems on highway on-ramps because they can't figure out how to safely merge with traffic. Roundabouts will be the same thing, but just at lower speeds.
I figured I would get lynched, or at least punched really hard. Might beats right.
If I wanted to appear smart, I would correct you a second time on the use of disk, since you missed it the first time. Disc is from the Greek discus, a later adopted spelling of the term, and used to describe things you throw, like frisbees and CDs. Disk is the more traditional English spelling, and used to describe storage devices, since that is the spelling IBM chose to use when they started manufacturing disk drives 55 years ago.
I would consider this a nail in the coffin if it resulted in a drastic decrease in the use of disk drives, limiting it only to fringe applications. Flash drives have dropped in price drastically over the past decade, but due to its basic design, they're rapidly closing in on a wall, past which they cannot miniaturize it any further. This new technology is still several years away from the market, and in the mean time, hard disks will continue dropping in price, and people will continue storing all sorts of crap.
If the average consumer stops storing stuff locally, and instead migrates to the cloud, hosting companies are going to have all this data they need to store, with only modest performance requirements. The most economical way to achieve this for the foreseeable future will be disk drives. Even though the average consumer won't have disk drives in their own computers, their data will still be stored on disk drives. There will continue to be a vast market for their production.
Disk drives are being replaced by SSDs in a number of applications. SSDs win out when performance or power consumption needs are critical. Disk drives are still king in any application requiring bulk storage, and that is not due to change any time soon.
Someone is going to have to have the disks somewhere. The individual user may only have a single SSD in their device, but someone needs to provide the bulk storage.
The problem with flash memory is that it is inherently volatile. It is based off the storage of a static charge, and there is no such thing as a perfect insulator. During normal operation, you need a high current to tunnel through the insulator and store the charge, but that charge will slowly leak out on its own over time. Given enough time, the charge will drop below a threshold and be read incorrectly.
All microprocessor technologies suffer from this to some extent, and CPUs are expected to hit a wall dealing with this leakage in about 15 years. Flash memory is only expected to get one or two more process shrinks before this leakage is expected to cause problems on a useful time frame. At this point, flash memory will have to be refreshed like traditional DRAM more and more frequently. Online SSDs can afford this, but offline USB drives cannot. Now you can simply start stacking chips, but your costs will rise geometrically, and heat dissipation will become a problem. Flash will be unable to produce higher capacity at lower prices.
One of these new technologies will pan out in the near term, because with the current technology reaching the end of its life, the industry will have to transition to something new to continue to sell new product.
"if you don't think what we think and hate those brownskinned people then Yer Not A Real Amurrikkan!"
I would love to have someone say that to me in person. I wonder what their response would be when informed that brownskinned Mexicans are from America.
No. The i3 and i5 lines integrate the graphics core on the same package as the CPU. The only thing the board provides are video transmitters. Intel has not produced a chipset with graphics since the G45 and Core 2 line.
One with a one or more big graphics cards.
Based off the operational design of existing ION thrusters, your power source is irrelevant. Assume you have a huge solar array, and power is unlimited. The only thing that matters is how fast you can accelerate your consumable fuel source. Traditional rockets dump exhaust at thousands of meters per second. ION drives do so at tens of thousands of meters per second. Using the several billion kelven reaction temperature, and a magnetic nozzle, you're looking at exhaust velocities in the millions of meters per second. Higher exhaust velocity means higher total delta V, assuming you don't kill yourself in engine mass.
I won't lie to you. We're just throwing science at the wall to see what sticks.
The laser will be far more focused than a full square centimeter.
That's easy. All you have to do is beat them with it to show that they are better armored than a main battle tank, and won't be harmed by something so trivial as the detonation of several million pounds of rocket fuel.
"The specific power of the proton-triggered boron fuel would be so great that a mere mole of it (11 grams) would yield roughly 300 megawatts of power. " (!) the efficiency sounds awesome.
Come on IEEE, I expected better of you. Power output is irrelevent. We care about energy output. 11 grams of boron fuel will get you 300 megawatts for what duration?