I don't believe frequency overlap is much of an issue with short-distance/line-of-sight (wireless) communications to begin with. It would have to be a very dense open space for many devices to be competing for spectrum.
Perhaps because there aren't many known ways to tune the frequency of visible-spectrum EM emissions at rates which make using that part of the spectrum in that manner effective?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. "Tuning" is absolutely not necessary. Simple off/on digital communications work at very high speeds with fiber optics in the visible light spectrum right now.
But ethanol is such a poor fuel compared to biodiesel I am amazed it gets the attention it does.
Ethanol isn't as good as biodiesel, but it's still pretty good.
The important part, though, is that cars run on ethanol right now, not biodiesel. Making gasoline 15% ethanol right now would work in nearly every existing car, and would basically eliminate the need to import oil from the middle east.
Of course, that's a bit of a simplistic view of the market. In reality, imports will continue, but prices will simply just drop, but they should do so drastically.
Corn ethanol hasnt gotten close to breaking even and isnt expected to do so.
The latter is not true. It should more than break even.
Bioiesel production per energy breaks even with nearly every method.
That's not remotely true. There are numerous crops for which it is not a net gain to make into biodiesel.
It also has greater energy than gasoline per volume, unlike ethanol which has about 2/3's as much as gasoline.
Theoretical energy content hardly matters at all, since there is no 100% conversion method. In gasoline engines, ethanol does NOT result in a 1/3rd drop in fuel efficiency. As an additive, the drop is much lower, and in high concentrations, the higher octane means compression ratios can be increased without adverse effects, giving better fuel-mileage than pure gasoline, not worse.
Today, automakers are focused on riding out low compression engines to the very end instead of focusing on more efficient and powerful diesel technology.
The US has practically outlawed diesel cars over the past decade with strict emission controls, and high sulfur fuel. You can't really blame the auto companies.
So we will not see soon a Manhattan project for more efficient engines, nor will we see the same fervor put into biodiesel prduction that we currently have for the ethanol pipe dream.
Ethanol is only a stop-gap measure to begin with. Biodiesel would require everyone buying new diesel cars, then building up biodiesel infrastructure, only for slightly better biodiesel fuel to become the stop-gap measure, before emission-free vehicles come about.
How come aren't there any diesel hybrids available?
Because diesels don't have as many drawbacks as gasoline engines, so there's less potential gain to be had.
Diesels are more efficient at low RPMs (accelerating), use less fuel when just idling, and also require more energy to start, so shutting off the engine for short periods still less of a benefit.
why aren't the car engines run like the train engines, with the diesel motor running at a more or less constant rate refueling the batteries that run the electric motors that actually turn the wheels
Well, then you need a more powerful electric motor (in hybrid cars, they only operate up to 45MPH), a more powerful alternator that can constantly supply much higher voltages, a much bigger battery to meet peak power demands, etc. At higher speeds, constant RPMs, directly driving the wheels is more energy efficient.
I would like to see such serial hybrids as a stop-gap measure or a range extender for fully-electric vehicles, but getting all your energy by converting mechanical to electrical, back to mechanical isn't terribly efficient.
Once you get close to the frequency of infrared light... Why not just make the jump, and go with light instead?
They're both going to be line-of-sight anyhow, with anything that blocks light very likely also blocks THz rf.
Light, however, has the distinct advantage of being ridiculously cheap to implement... You could cheaply put 1 (or more) transceivers on every side of every device so that it never has to be reoriented to communicate in any specific direction.
IrDA isn't very fast, but only because it was only designed as a replacement for RS232 wires, not networking. Speeds could be pushed higher than anything in the UHF spectrum, as evidenced by fiber optics.
If I build the packages from source, then there's exactly _one person_ doing QA for my packages, and that's me. Obviously, if I use someone elses' packages, then I get to share their QA.
You've completely and utterly ignored a key point:
"If you need to build from ports for some reason,"
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD provide full packages of almost all of their ports (a few have licensing issues), just like Linux.
when FreeBSD has some serious catching up to do.
You haven't mentioned one single issue where FreeBSD is behind. You just blindly assert that they are, somewhere, somehow...
Prove it. Stop hiding behind vague statements that can't be pinned down.
The *BSDs package management is better than any other I've seen, and far better than Slackware's pkgs, which don't manage dependencies at all... OpenBSD just doesn't use packages for the base system (dist sets instead), and doesn't provide updated binaries (for manpower reasons), only source.
Maintenance actually gets easier, the more machines you have. If you need to build from ports for some reason, you only have to do it once, and can distribute the generated packages across as many systems as you want. Ditto for updating the base system, you just have to build it, then you can make dist sets to distribute.
America is going through a bit of a religious experience at the moment, with people rejecting science by the million.
That cannot happen and the US retain their technological advantage.
How are ongoing arguments about evolution and global warming possibly going to have any effect at all on technology? Are biology and climatology mandatory prerequisites for Computer Science? Do questions over evolution convince people that computers don't and can't actually work?
MOST people that have a hidef set only have a 720P set
Source? I don't believe that claim at all. With 26" 1080i CRT HDTVs going for $300, and 50"+ 1080i CRT projection HDTVs for under $1000, I have a hard time believing that (lower-end) LCD/Plasmas (typically around 720) are more popular.
a 720P set which makes standard DVD's look utterly fantastic compared to the crap on your Cable TV and only slightly better when running a blu-ray movie through it.
"slightly" == 2.667X better... About the same as the quality improvement from VHS to DVDs.
Why don't we just start calling every cell phone an "iPhone Killer" right now, instead of building up to it for months...
I'm sick of the Apple pop cliche. If you want to build a phone, good for you, Apple need not enter into it. Constantly comparing your products to Apple's, will only help Apple out-sell you, and not for reasons of technical superiority, either. Trends just work that way...
And if you want to make a damn good product, a half-assed job copying a handful of individual features isn't going to do it. Doing it with 5 different product lines every year isn't going to help (the iPod practically hasn't changed in the years since its introduction). Such gimmicky tricks hurt in the long run.
Yeah.. well the linux community stops supporting old hardware too.
Oh, after a couple decades, yeah, you might have a slightly harder time finding a distro supporting your old hardware. Your 66MHz Pentium with 8MBs of RAM, however, will still work perfectly with most of the newest distros.
KDE and Gnome run like crap on old machines unless you use old versions.
Yes, well, Linux != KDE/Gnome. Most of us are much happier with lightweight window managers, even though our computers could easily handled KDE/Gnome. XFCE and Fluxbox seem to be developing quite a cult following, and the latest version of either will work find on brutally slow hardware... Not to mention the hundreds of other lightweight window managers.
At some point, the linux community won't optimize for Apple style PPC chips...
Sure they will. And if they don't, the BSD community certainly will. The _VAX_ port of OpenBSD is still included (and with plenty of 3rd party packages) on the install CDs they sell. I have no doubt NetBSD continues to actively support numerous types even older hardware.
Windows 2000/me, however, was a terribly mangled and unstable peice of software.
Hmm, sounds like you believe Windows ME and Windows 2000 are the same operating system. In fact, the two couldn't possibly be more different. XP is really just a different interface on top of Windows 2000.
In general, you'll be paying about twice as much for a screen of the same nominal size,
Err, no.
My 27" HDTV was $400 over a year ago. I have no doubt you can walk into any big-box retailer, and find at least one brand of HDTV equally cheap... It just won't be an RCA. Usually Toshiba and Samsung, or other no-name companies instead.
and the differing aspect ratios mean you'll need an even bigger nominal size if you watch a lot of 4:3 content.
Most content has been 16:9 for years, from DVDs to TV shows. For 4:3, cropping a little bit off the top and bottom doesn't make it any less watchable, and the higher screen resolution will help, even if you have a physically smaller screen.
Sorry, can't link to meat-space... I often find in-store prices are lower than advertised/online.
Target.com has one for $299, but it's only 26",
I'd say that's close enough to illustrate my point... That 26" is a pretty good deal, being RCA rather than no-name Chinese junk (ie. Everything Wal-mart offers).
they just waste electricity and CPU cycles, and generate excess heat my A/C unit has to deal with!
You can get the benefits without the drawbacks... Suspend (S3) only takes a couple seconds (to suspend or resume), and your PC barely draws any more power in S3 than it does when entirely off... maybe 1W, and that's probably earned back from not having to wait 30 seconds for startup/shutdown.
They are made to third parties with no way of determining the validity of the claim.
The 3rd party has no need nor reason to determine anything. Even if they could hire a lawyer and fight the DMCA, they wouldn't want to.
They can't know if the claimant owns the copyright, the law requires them to ASSUME they do.
There's little way to conclusively prove something like that quickly in a form letter.
So all the damages clauses for making a false claim are worthless because the THIRD party receiving the take down notice has no way of determing that a false claim and has no incentive to pursue a false claim.
Since when has a 3rd party ever been obligated, or even ABLE, to pursue anything for anyone? The individual on the receiving end has the right to do that, not the ISP, nor should they.
All the more reason to make boards that take 1 gig of -really- fast RAM, and 32 (or more) gigs of slower/cheaper RAM
That's fine, EXCEPT:
32GBs of slow RAM is going to take ridiculous amounts of motherboard real-estate, and added cost even for those of us who don't want it. There's not much reason to put it on the motherboard, as SCSI or SATA would be fast enough for old, slow RAM. 32GBs of RAM isn't going to be cheap, no matter how slow, unless you do it on a small scale, so existing supplies of old/used RAM don't start running in short supply. Slower/older RAM isn't significantly cheaper to produce, I'm afraid. I would know; I still check-up on prices of PC133 for older systems. Right now, 512MBs of PC5400 is $30, while PC133 is $40. Supply/demand applies, but you're still not going to see much savings.
Slashdot Mirror
High-speed digital communications bear little resemblance with low-speed manual signaling.
That said, I'm not sure why you got a Flamebait mod.
I don't believe frequency overlap is much of an issue with short-distance/line-of-sight (wireless) communications to begin with. It would have to be a very dense open space for many devices to be competing for spectrum.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. "Tuning" is absolutely not necessary. Simple off/on digital communications work at very high speeds with fiber optics in the visible light spectrum right now.
Ethanol isn't as good as biodiesel, but it's still pretty good.
The important part, though, is that cars run on ethanol right now, not biodiesel. Making gasoline 15% ethanol right now would work in nearly every existing car, and would basically eliminate the need to import oil from the middle east.
Of course, that's a bit of a simplistic view of the market. In reality, imports will continue, but prices will simply just drop, but they should do so drastically.
The latter is not true. It should more than break even.
That's not remotely true. There are numerous crops for which it is not a net gain to make into biodiesel.
Theoretical energy content hardly matters at all, since there is no 100% conversion method. In gasoline engines, ethanol does NOT result in a 1/3rd drop in fuel efficiency. As an additive, the drop is much lower, and in high concentrations, the higher octane means compression ratios can be increased without adverse effects, giving better fuel-mileage than pure gasoline, not worse.
The US has practically outlawed diesel cars over the past decade with strict emission controls, and high sulfur fuel. You can't really blame the auto companies.
Ethanol is only a stop-gap measure to begin with. Biodiesel would require everyone buying new diesel cars, then building up biodiesel infrastructure, only for slightly better biodiesel fuel to become the stop-gap measure, before emission-free vehicles come about.
Because diesels don't have as many drawbacks as gasoline engines, so there's less potential gain to be had.
Diesels are more efficient at low RPMs (accelerating), use less fuel when just idling, and also require more energy to start, so shutting off the engine for short periods still less of a benefit.
Well, then you need a more powerful electric motor (in hybrid cars, they only operate up to 45MPH), a more powerful alternator that can constantly supply much higher voltages, a much bigger battery to meet peak power demands, etc. At higher speeds, constant RPMs, directly driving the wheels is more energy efficient.
I would like to see such serial hybrids as a stop-gap measure or a range extender for fully-electric vehicles, but getting all your energy by converting mechanical to electrical, back to mechanical isn't terribly efficient.
Once you get close to the frequency of infrared light... Why not just make the jump, and go with light instead?
They're both going to be line-of-sight anyhow, with anything that blocks light very likely also blocks THz rf.
Light, however, has the distinct advantage of being ridiculously cheap to implement... You could cheaply put 1 (or more) transceivers on every side of every device so that it never has to be reoriented to communicate in any specific direction.
IrDA isn't very fast, but only because it was only designed as a replacement for RS232 wires, not networking. Speeds could be pushed higher than anything in the UHF spectrum, as evidenced by fiber optics.
Which is EXACTLY what TFA said...
But hey, what do I know, your post is a +5, so it must be somehow insightful, not 100% redundant.
You've completely and utterly ignored a key point:
"If you need to build from ports for some reason,"
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD provide full packages of almost all of their ports (a few have licensing issues), just like Linux.
You haven't mentioned one single issue where FreeBSD is behind. You just blindly assert that they are, somewhere, somehow...
Prove it. Stop hiding behind vague statements that can't be pinned down.
The *BSDs package management is better than any other I've seen, and far better than Slackware's pkgs, which don't manage dependencies at all... OpenBSD just doesn't use packages for the base system (dist sets instead), and doesn't provide updated binaries (for manpower reasons), only source.
Maintenance actually gets easier, the more machines you have. If you need to build from ports for some reason, you only have to do it once, and can distribute the generated packages across as many systems as you want. Ditto for updating the base system, you just have to build it, then you can make dist sets to distribute.
You're not even a good troll.
How are ongoing arguments about evolution and global warming possibly going to have any effect at all on technology? Are biology and climatology mandatory prerequisites for Computer Science? Do questions over evolution convince people that computers don't and can't actually work?
Source? I don't believe that claim at all. With 26" 1080i CRT HDTVs going for $300, and 50"+ 1080i CRT projection HDTVs for under $1000, I have a hard time believing that (lower-end) LCD/Plasmas (typically around 720) are more popular.
"slightly" == 2.667X better... About the same as the quality improvement from VHS to DVDs.
Unfortunately, that reputation is from 10 years ago. These days, I'd suggest being very cautious about buying Sony.
Why don't we just start calling every cell phone an "iPhone Killer" right now, instead of building up to it for months...
I'm sick of the Apple pop cliche. If you want to build a phone, good for you, Apple need not enter into it. Constantly comparing your products to Apple's, will only help Apple out-sell you, and not for reasons of technical superiority, either. Trends just work that way...
And if you want to make a damn good product, a half-assed job copying a handful of individual features isn't going to do it. Doing it with 5 different product lines every year isn't going to help (the iPod practically hasn't changed in the years since its introduction). Such gimmicky tricks hurt in the long run.
But a new revision of OS X certainly isn't a "new OS". That's closer to a service pack in the Windows world.
And I wouldn't do so much bragging about OS X. Going from OS9 to OS X sure as hell wasn't a performance improvement.
Oh, after a couple decades, yeah, you might have a slightly harder time finding a distro supporting your old hardware. Your 66MHz Pentium with 8MBs of RAM, however, will still work perfectly with most of the newest distros.
Yes, well, Linux != KDE/Gnome. Most of us are much happier with lightweight window managers, even though our computers could easily handled KDE/Gnome. XFCE and Fluxbox seem to be developing quite a cult following, and the latest version of either will work find on brutally slow hardware... Not to mention the hundreds of other lightweight window managers.
Sure they will. And if they don't, the BSD community certainly will. The _VAX_ port of OpenBSD is still included (and with plenty of 3rd party packages) on the install CDs they sell. I have no doubt NetBSD continues to actively support numerous types even older hardware.
Hmm, sounds like you believe Windows ME and Windows 2000 are the same operating system. In fact, the two couldn't possibly be more different. XP is really just a different interface on top of Windows 2000.
Err, no.
My 27" HDTV was $400 over a year ago. I have no doubt you can walk into any big-box retailer, and find at least one brand of HDTV equally cheap... It just won't be an RCA. Usually Toshiba and Samsung, or other no-name companies instead.
Most content has been 16:9 for years, from DVDs to TV shows. For 4:3, cropping a little bit off the top and bottom doesn't make it any less watchable, and the higher screen resolution will help, even if you have a physically smaller screen.
Sorry, can't link to meat-space... I often find in-store prices are lower than advertised/online.
I'd say that's close enough to illustrate my point... That 26" is a pretty good deal, being RCA rather than no-name Chinese junk (ie. Everything Wal-mart offers).
Cite your sources for this bullshit, or shut the hell up.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you replied to the wrong comment.
You can get the benefits without the drawbacks... Suspend (S3) only takes a couple seconds (to suspend or resume), and your PC barely draws any more power in S3 than it does when entirely off... maybe 1W, and that's probably earned back from not having to wait 30 seconds for startup/shutdown.
Doesn't seem hard to me. We know exactly where it exists on the spectrum. It would simply be a higher-frequency version/shade of purple/violet.
The 3rd party has no need nor reason to determine anything. Even if they could hire a lawyer and fight the DMCA, they wouldn't want to.
There's little way to conclusively prove something like that quickly in a form letter.
Since when has a 3rd party ever been obligated, or even ABLE, to pursue anything for anyone? The individual on the receiving end has the right to do that, not the ISP, nor should they.
That's fine, EXCEPT:
32GBs of slow RAM is going to take ridiculous amounts of motherboard real-estate, and added cost even for those of us who don't want it.
There's not much reason to put it on the motherboard, as SCSI or SATA would be fast enough for old, slow RAM.
32GBs of RAM isn't going to be cheap, no matter how slow, unless you do it on a small scale, so existing supplies of old/used RAM don't start running in short supply.
Slower/older RAM isn't significantly cheaper to produce, I'm afraid. I would know; I still check-up on prices of PC133 for older systems. Right now, 512MBs of PC5400 is $30, while PC133 is $40. Supply/demand applies, but you're still not going to see much savings.