Who cares what size the display is. If the video you are trying to play is 1080p, you still have to be able to decode 1080p. Besides that, resolution does not make a significant difference anyway. Performance needed for decoding is more dependent on the bitrate than anything else.
Some ION systems have struggled slightly with 1080p decoding.
ION systems handle 1080p decoding just fine. Nvidia has one dedicated hardware decoder that is shared across all of their cards. The only improvements that ION2 (and GT2xx cards) provide is a MPEG4 Part2 (ASP, DivX, XviD) decoding, and an improved video scaler.
There are two issues that you may encounter. Being a hardware decoder, it is limited in what options it supports. x264 supports a number of options, levels, and profiles than Nvidia's decoder is capable of handling. People who don't know what they're doing foolishly use those options for that couple percent of extra compressibility. The hardware only supports decoding and scaling, so any deinterlacing needs to be done in software on the shaders. At least under linux, the 9400M is just barely incapable of performing the most intensive deinterlacer at 1080i, and a mild overclock is needed to do 1080i50.
The idea is that you only need a small 30hp or so generator to keep the flywheel spun up and provide enough power for highway cruise. Then the electric motor handles all your acceleration and breaking.
The laws as implemented shoot themselves in the foot. You are equally distracted while talking on a bluetooth device, but, in California at least, that is still perfectly permissible.
This may only be my personal experience, but having a phone up to my ear is far more problematic than using a headset. It has nothing to do with being distracted by the conversation, but rather the fact that you are now blind to that side of your car. If you're just driving a steady speed, with no one in front of you, who cares. If you're in moderate traffic and may have to change lanes for whatever reason, it's a huge difference.
Exploiting a flaw in computer code to gain access to a computer system without permission is illegal. You probably misread the OP and thought they were merely talking about finding and selling exploits.
Someone mod the parent up for pointing out what is actually going on here!
As mentioned, the ONLY thing being lost here is the program guide. HTPC users will still be able to use a plain old DVB-T2 card with their MCE or XMLTV guide data without so much as a hint of lack of functionality.
As for ultimate limits, the difference between stalling and breaking the sound barrier was about 50 knots for the U2 flights. That may have been plus or minus 50', but I think it was actually +/-25. Memory fails. Anyway, 68K feet is a *seriously* nerve-wracking place to fly if your airplane can't do Mach.
It was +/- 5 knots. Luckily at that altitude, there are no gusts.
From a quick Google, It appears that above Flight Level 240 (24000) the majority of the thrust of a turbofan comes from the jet exhaust, while at sea level most of it comes from the fan.
While possibly true in practice, it has nothing to do with altitude. Thrust comes from the mass flow rate, times the change in velocity. Aside from fighter jets on afterburner, the exhaust coming out of a jet engine will be subsonic. The speed of sound is proportional to the square root of temperature, so the hot core flow will be much faster than the relatively cool bypass flow.
So what relevance is this to anything? By 'sea level' the quote you saw probably meant 'take off', or zero forward velocity. FL240 would be cruise at 500-550 knots. You have high mass flow but low velocity through the bypass fan, and high velocity but low mass flow through the core. At cruise speed, the velocity differential of the bypass flow may only be 1/4 what it was static, while the much hotter and faster core flow still has more than half its differential. Modern high bypass turbofans have ratios of 9:1 or better, so the bypass will still be producing more thrust than the core even at the reduced efficiency.
You're right, I meant to say 'per second' rather than 'per minute', which would absolutely require a multi-faceted mirror (with several dozen sides). You couldn't structurally spin anywhere near 4M RPM.
That's because each color only has to be hit once per frame. Usually, they cycle through each color multiple times, but each color appears multiple times on a wheel, so you're still in the tens to hundreds RPM range. Compare that with a 1080p60 scanning display, which would be running at 65k RPM.
On the other hand, they could play games with it like having a multi-faceted mirror, hitting it with multiple lasers at different angles, using multiple mirrors with multiple lasers or a splitter, etc...
Your points were only dealing with people with allergies to peanuts. My point was that you would have to check for both. In this case, it was actually a nut allergy, as the article states Air Canada has not served peanuts on flights for several years.
Peanuts are not nuts, they are a legume (bean). I'm not trying to be pedantic. This actually makes a difference as far as allergies are concerned, specifically that peanut allergies and general nut allergies are completely independent. My mom has nut allergies, and eating something with nuts, or cooked with nuts, will cause her to swell up. Conversely, my uncle can eat nuts, but peanuts may require him to take a trip to the hospital.
I was referring to the guy on the site you were talking about. With my mind thinking about particle physics, (and mesons, hadrons, baryons, gluons, etc...) I thought he started rambling on about some fictitious particle named a 'runon'.
Make that 'nearly all'. Photovoltaics and hydroelectric are the only two I can think of that aren't directly powered by a heat differential, and if you want to get down to it, tidal plants are the only ones not indirectly powered by heat.
It's not hubris, it's simple probability. The energy levels of the LHC are not that impressive, they are just several times greater than we have ever before produced in a controlled lab environment. The LHC is only rated for operation at 14TeV (1.4e13), while the highest energy cosmic rays recorded are on the order of 100EeV (1e20). If these particles have hit Earth at sufficient frequency that we have detected them on several occurrences, and we haven't yet collapsed into a black hole, what are the chances that the LHC will do so?
Slashdot Mirror
The resolution of the screen is completely irrelevant. You have to be able to decode whatever format the video is in. Scaling comes afterward.
Nothing supports decoding of x264, and x264 does not support decoding. x264 is just one open source encoder for the H.264 codec.
Technically 'Atom + 9400M = ION'.
Who cares what size the display is. If the video you are trying to play is 1080p, you still have to be able to decode 1080p. Besides that, resolution does not make a significant difference anyway. Performance needed for decoding is more dependent on the bitrate than anything else.
Some ION systems have struggled slightly with 1080p decoding.
ION systems handle 1080p decoding just fine. Nvidia has one dedicated hardware decoder that is shared across all of their cards. The only improvements that ION2 (and GT2xx cards) provide is a MPEG4 Part2 (ASP, DivX, XviD) decoding, and an improved video scaler.
There are two issues that you may encounter. Being a hardware decoder, it is limited in what options it supports. x264 supports a number of options, levels, and profiles than Nvidia's decoder is capable of handling. People who don't know what they're doing foolishly use those options for that couple percent of extra compressibility. The hardware only supports decoding and scaling, so any deinterlacing needs to be done in software on the shaders. At least under linux, the 9400M is just barely incapable of performing the most intensive deinterlacer at 1080i, and a mild overclock is needed to do 1080i50.
The idea is that you only need a small 30hp or so generator to keep the flywheel spun up and provide enough power for highway cruise. Then the electric motor handles all your acceleration and breaking.
The laws as implemented shoot themselves in the foot. You are equally distracted while talking on a bluetooth device, but, in California at least, that is still perfectly permissible.
This may only be my personal experience, but having a phone up to my ear is far more problematic than using a headset. It has nothing to do with being distracted by the conversation, but rather the fact that you are now blind to that side of your car. If you're just driving a steady speed, with no one in front of you, who cares. If you're in moderate traffic and may have to change lanes for whatever reason, it's a huge difference.
Exploiting a flaw in computer code to gain access to a computer system without permission is illegal. You probably misread the OP and thought they were merely talking about finding and selling exploits.
Correct. Below 10GPa, carbon freezes into graphite, while above it freezes into a diamond.
Someone mod the parent up for pointing out what is actually going on here!
As mentioned, the ONLY thing being lost here is the program guide. HTPC users will still be able to use a plain old DVB-T2 card with their MCE or XMLTV guide data without so much as a hint of lack of functionality.
Too expensive though; The price for that much copper would be astronomical.
Nonsense. 1.5mi of high grade copper is as close as the nearest 1kft box of bulk CAT5.
Design a car with a body of an airplane and you will get great fuel efficiency, the only problem is convincing people to drive it.
See... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_2_Series
As for ultimate limits, the difference between stalling and breaking the sound barrier was about 50 knots for the U2 flights. That may have been plus or minus 50', but I think it was actually +/-25. Memory fails. Anyway, 68K feet is a *seriously* nerve-wracking place to fly if your airplane can't do Mach.
It was +/- 5 knots. Luckily at that altitude, there are no gusts.
From a quick Google, It appears that above Flight Level 240 (24000) the majority of the thrust of a turbofan comes from the jet exhaust, while at sea level most of it comes from the fan.
While possibly true in practice, it has nothing to do with altitude. Thrust comes from the mass flow rate, times the change in velocity. Aside from fighter jets on afterburner, the exhaust coming out of a jet engine will be subsonic. The speed of sound is proportional to the square root of temperature, so the hot core flow will be much faster than the relatively cool bypass flow.
So what relevance is this to anything? By 'sea level' the quote you saw probably meant 'take off', or zero forward velocity. FL240 would be cruise at 500-550 knots. You have high mass flow but low velocity through the bypass fan, and high velocity but low mass flow through the core. At cruise speed, the velocity differential of the bypass flow may only be 1/4 what it was static, while the much hotter and faster core flow still has more than half its differential. Modern high bypass turbofans have ratios of 9:1 or better, so the bypass will still be producing more thrust than the core even at the reduced efficiency.
Only if you succeed.
Atmospheric drag. That first 100kft sucks off a couple km/s velocity. You're proposing they spend more time there.
You're right, I meant to say 'per second' rather than 'per minute', which would absolutely require a multi-faceted mirror (with several dozen sides). You couldn't structurally spin anywhere near 4M RPM.
That's because each color only has to be hit once per frame. Usually, they cycle through each color multiple times, but each color appears multiple times on a wheel, so you're still in the tens to hundreds RPM range. Compare that with a 1080p60 scanning display, which would be running at 65k RPM.
On the other hand, they could play games with it like having a multi-faceted mirror, hitting it with multiple lasers at different angles, using multiple mirrors with multiple lasers or a splitter, etc...
Yeah, X-Rays are EM radiation, and WiFi is... EM radiation.
Did you mean to say the two completely identical forms of energy have entirely different properties due to their frequency/energy level?
Your points were only dealing with people with allergies to peanuts. My point was that you would have to check for both. In this case, it was actually a nut allergy, as the article states Air Canada has not served peanuts on flights for several years.
The allergy 'victims' are really child abuse victims.
People with severe allergies would have just died off at a young age generations past.
Peanuts are not nuts, they are a legume (bean). I'm not trying to be pedantic. This actually makes a difference as far as allergies are concerned, specifically that peanut allergies and general nut allergies are completely independent. My mom has nut allergies, and eating something with nuts, or cooked with nuts, will cause her to swell up. Conversely, my uncle can eat nuts, but peanuts may require him to take a trip to the hospital.
I apologize. I misread your post.
I was referring to the guy on the site you were talking about. With my mind thinking about particle physics, (and mesons, hadrons, baryons, gluons, etc...) I thought he started rambling on about some fictitious particle named a 'runon'.
Make that 'nearly all'. Photovoltaics and hydroelectric are the only two I can think of that aren't directly powered by a heat differential, and if you want to get down to it, tidal plants are the only ones not indirectly powered by heat.
It's not hubris, it's simple probability. The energy levels of the LHC are not that impressive, they are just several times greater than we have ever before produced in a controlled lab environment. The LHC is only rated for operation at 14TeV (1.4e13), while the highest energy cosmic rays recorded are on the order of 100EeV (1e20). If these particles have hit Earth at sufficient frequency that we have detected them on several occurrences, and we haven't yet collapsed into a black hole, what are the chances that the LHC will do so?