Your car engine does not dip when you turn your headlights on while driving down the road,
You might not notice it, but it does.
your headlights are such a small draw on power that you will not notice it at the pump.
So? Just because you don't pay that close attention to your gas mileage, doesn't mean it won't have an effect.
I bet an extra hour of lighting your house is such a small drain on power that you won't notice it on your electric bill. But that small percentage is exactly what DST is all about, and in aggregate it makes a huge difference.
You can't just discount mechanical energy and pretend that it always takes the same amount of *fuel* to power your headlights just because they draw a constant amount of power.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you're once again trying to say that turning your alternator is free, you're simply, totally, wrong. You can't get something for nothing, no matter how small a power drain it is. You might not notice it, but you're pushing the alternator just slightly more to compensate for the resistance to the alternator, and so using up that much more gasoline.
Now if you ran your headlights on D batteries, you'd certainly notice it, fast.
Rechargeable batteries are many times more efficient than getting electricity from an ICE, add to that the limited supply of oil, and it's overwhelmingly clear that grid load is much better than car engine load.
You do know that 65nM FPGA's were on the market before 65nM processors.
No, actually what I know is that you're absolutely wrong.
Intel's 65nm Core CPUs were released January 2006, while Xilinx was turning out press releases at the end of May 2006, claiming to have produced the first 65nm FPGAs.
The reason is obvious,
What appears to be "obvious" to you, is utterly and completely wrong to the rest of the world...
But that has nothing to do with DST, [...] I heard on NPR the other day, that the _real_ reason for DST is not to save energy, but rather to appease the retail sector.
I do believe you pretty well contradict yourself in those two opening sentences.
that has to do with 1) what time you come and go to work and how long you stay there,
Yes, but 1) is heavily affected by the 1) of everyone else in the area. What better way is there to switch everyone in a large area to a different schedule, all at once?
So why don't we all just keep the clocks an hour ahead, and get that "extra hour" all year round?
It only works in the summer, because the period of daylight is actually longer.
If you keep it through the winter, suddenly many businesses are trying to work in the dark for the first hour, and they'll quickly decide to move the start of the work day back 1 hour, and most others will follow suit, thereby eliminating any benefit of DST.
You're definitely not going to be hot-plugging your notebook hard drive.
Except in rare cases, you're not likely to replace the drive more than once or twice in the lifetime of the notebook, so the "nicer connectors" mean very, very little.
You'll never get even close to 3GB/s- much like you can't get that fast with desktop drives either.
You just answered your own question.
The switch to SATA has only a small bit to do with sustained throughput. Other issues are paramount.
Burst transfer, for instance, can be as fast as whatever bus you're using, and with notebooks typically having a larger HDD cache, that could be significant.
More than that, SATA features, like NCQ, which have long speed-up the performance of SCSI drives before they even reached 5400RPMs, will likely have just as much of a performance improvement on slow notebook drives, as they do on 2X faster desktop/enterprise units.
But just for the record, I don't think the performance improvements of SATA are worth the costs, right now, for home users.
If they have their standard shows they watch, they're going to watch them whether it's light outside or dark.
No, they aren't. Most people watch TV just because they have nothing else to do. Their TV shows aren't at the very top of their list of things to do every day. If they can go somewhere, or do something, they aren't at all concerned about missing a TV show.
The ratings bear this out, with lower viewership in the summer months, which is why that is the off-season for most series.
you're turning the alternator regardless of whether you've got the lights on or not, and headlights are not a significant enough power draw to impact performance.
Except of course for the fact that you're completely wrong.
You're turning the alternator, but when there's no electric load, it's providing very little resistance. When you start drawing watts, the resistance to your engine's momentum increases.
I, admitedly, have a small car (only 100HP). However, when I turn on the headlights in my idling car, I can easily feel the engine suddenly jerk, and watch the RPMs fall.
Just because you might not notice an extra 5% load on your engine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't have a 5% impact on your fuel economy (number made-up on the spot, of course it will vary with the vehicle).
They don't use any that comes off the power grid, unless you have a plug-in electric car.
Powering headlights off the grid is BETTER, not WORSE.
Your ICE is already only 25% efficient or so. Then the mechanical to electrical conversion adds more inefficiency. Then various other issues with the way car electrical systems work cause even more inefficiency, etc.
If driven off a normal IC engine, the extra fuel consumed to turn the alternator with the headlight load on it is maybe a drop or two a mile.
That's complete and total bullshit. Conservation of energy applies. You can't get something for nothing. Every watt of electricity you use was generated by burning at least 4 joules worth of gasoline, and likely more.
The only place that might not be true is if your car is incredibly inefficient to begin with (eg. V-8 in a 1-ton car), then the difference might be small enough as to go unnoticed.
would be a simple matter to retrofit existing laptops (which use DriveLock to protect the disks) with the improved security of full-blown encryption.
And as an added bonus, since most Laptops can only use the same password for the hard drive as they do for the Laptop lock, you can start up an extremely profitable business selling the hardware adapter to download the EPROM from popular Laptops, and the software which seeks to the proper address in the ROM dump, and prints out the password.
And at the end of the day, USA is still continuing their Cold War politics by inertia. They waste a phenomenal amount of resources to continue along lines that have no further meaning and use instead of even considering new threats. No wander they get their ex-best-friend to run a couple of planes into key buildings with such ease.
Interesting you'd use this wholly self-contradictory excuse. If the US was continuing "Cold War politics" they wouldn't have shut down the strategic air defense system, which could have tracked and stopped those "couple of planes" to begin with.
If the cold war is any lesson, the people with the most freedom create the best economic engine, and thus in turn the richest state, and then in turn again, the best weapons.
First, that dismisses the current status of China... A huge economy, with very, very little freedom.
Second, it doesn't account for western Europe... They have plenty of freedom, and a very strong economy, but they are so loosely organized that they couldn't, and probably still can't, pose real opposition to a single large (totalitarian) state.
IMO, the US prevailed because of very good leadership over several decades. There are many, many individual policy decisions that, had they gone differently, could have significantly changed the balance of power.
But more than that, he wasn't ever claiming the US doesn't have them, just that claims are vastly exaggerated, and unsupported (in other words he's saying "no citation given").
2. Myth: The US wants to deny space to those it considers hostile. TSR: No they don't! (no citation given)
Pure bullshit, and you know it.
The actual headline was: 2. The latest United States "space policy" declares that it will "deny access to space" to those players it deems hostile,
He makes no claims what the US does or doesn't want to do. He points out that the often-cited "space policy" document contains no such claims. If you can't find the "space policy" he cited, you're not even trying: http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20P olicy.pdf
3. Myth: The US is planning to place weapons in space for the purpose of ground attack. TSR: No they aren't! (no citation given)
Overwhelming bullshit.
He absolutely never said "No they aren't!". He said it's expensive, much, much slower (DAYS), and submarines can do the job far faster/better.
Myth: The US ballistic missile defense systems have the capability to shoot down satellites. TSR: So what, the Russians have the same capability!
Bullshit. He was countering the claim that it: will give the US an unfairly asymmetric and destabilizing military advantage
Obviously, it's not asymmetrical if your only (remotely symmetrical) opponent already has exactly the same capabilities.
TSR: Let's confuse the issue by only talking about boost-phase BMD intercept!
No, actually it was "let's explain why BMD is vastly different than ASAT, and one doesn't apply to the other".
Equating a boost-phase anti-missile weapon (based at sea, on an aircraft, or even in space) to an anti-satellite weapon overlooks a fundamental design difference
That's as clear (and un-confused) as it gets.
Myth: The Russians have declared a moratorium on ASAT weapons testing. TSR: No they haven't! (no citation given)
He pointed out other important issues in the same statement (that they stopped testing) were lies. What citations do you need?
Now lets get back to you:
I stopped reading at this point.
No citation given...
This whole article is nothing more than a fact-free propaganda screed.
No citation given...
I can't believe Slashdot even bothered to post it...
For about the price of the case and power supply that I'd spec out for myself, I can pick up an entire computer with monitor and probably a printer at any number of stores.
Well then you must be absolutely HORRIBLE at shopping for components.
Your numbers don't even make sense, unless you have unbelievably high standards when shopping for components, and ridiculously low standards when buying a pre-built system.
Provide a link for a system, and I can easily link to cheaper (and probably bette) components.
CRT monitors are probably the only exception, as shipping is so high that buying an over-priced model in a retail store often still puts you ahead. Of course, even in those cases, a bit of online comparison and patience can yield extremely good deals.
Not really true. There are a few different big Caps manufacturers to choose between.
You are paying for a BRAND just like your clothing, just like your razor blades, just like your hair products.
Definately not true for computer components. There's a reason the high-end brands like Asus and Gigabyte give you 3year warranties, and crap like PcChips, Ecs and others give you practically nothing. Even when they do offer warranties, they try to weasel out of it, making it as hard as possible to get service, with stupid requirements.
I've occasionally seen some stupid design decisions and corner cutting from the more expensive manufacturers, but I've never seen high-quality from the cheap-crap manufacturers. Longer warranties, if nothing else, significantly reduce the amount of profit to be made by cutting corners, as they'll have to pay for it later.
Take a look around for the cheapest-ass components you can find (the ones you wouldnt actually buy), and you'll find you get about the same price as Dell prebuilts. And they often appear to use those same cheap-ass components in their low-end systems
The major difference being, when you buy a system from Dell or HP, you'll probably find features missing from those cheap-ass components. For example, it's pretty common to find your low-end HP/Dell motherboards lacking an AGP slot.
It seemed pretty inevitable to me, that the Intel/IBM/AMDs of the world would branch out.
The generation-old fabs they abandon for CPU-making, are still a generation newer than what most anyone else has available. Repurposing those fabs to produce something like Flash chips, chipsets, etc. seems a pretty straight-forward and inexpensive way to keep making money on largely worthless facilities, even after the cost of retooling is taken into account.
Though they obviously haven't done it yet, companies like Intel have the manufacturing capabilities to leapfrog past all current Flash manufacturers, as far as density is concerned (though, personally, I'd say Flash density is fine, if the price can be driven down).
The extra crap makes the computers cheaper, because they're effectively subsidized by the crapware.
People say that a lot, but apparently nobody thinks it through.
For a PC to be cheaper with Windows, Dell has to be getting an AVERAGE of at least $60+ from the vendors of the crap they've installed, to even COVER the cost of Windows. And for it to justify the $40 more expensive FreeDOS PCs, they'd have to be making well over $100 on that crap.
Either Dell is install the most valuable spyware in history, or the numbers don't come remotely close to adding up.
what do they do when their new printer doesn't come with linux-compatible drivers?
They call up Dell and complain. Dell asks them to look for a "Linux Compatible" sticker on the box, and when they don't find one, advises them to return their printer to the store or otherwise dispose of it, and offers to sell them an out-of-the-box, 100% Linux compatible printer...
JUST LIKE THEY DO WHEN YOU BUY HARDWARE THAT ISN'T COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR VERSION OF WINDOWS.
The difference between Linux and Windows, IMHO, is the people using it. People complain how hard it was to get random piece of hardware to work with Linux, not realizing it would have been far harder, if not impossible to even use with Windows. Most people won't be skilled enough to go through the trouble, and as the easier options come along, they'll buy them.
The Linux "demand" is similar. It's largely just astroturfing, rather than real demand from customers. It's people from/. going over to the polls on the Dell opinion site and clicking "Yes" thousands of times.
I doubt that. First, people that wanted Windows without any extra crap installed were a close second to the Linux/NoOS option.
Second, a big part (but not the only part) of wanting Linux is wanting cheaper computers... and EVERYBODY wants that. Even those who use Windows, but have their own retail copy they've kept using across 5 different systems, will want the same thing. If Linux is as cheap as the No OS option, and is cheaper than systems sold with Windows, there will be plenty of overlapping customer interests, and therefore demand.
Maybe only a minority will keep the stock Dell Linux install, but no matter what your OS of choice, it will surely increase sales, and could slightly increase profits, if they don't screw it up.
my understanding is that their compatibility with win32 is largely based on wine, and so it has most of the same bugs running win32, and then some.
No. The projects are working together, and code goes back and fourth... That's kinda the point of Open Source, isn't it? If somebody else does it better, you use what they've written, in your own project.
A few of the reasons to use ReactOS instead of WINE:
Drivers. How well does WINE load that WinXP dll/ocx driver for your WiFi card? Display driver? etc. Performance. Compatibility layer on top of another OS is never going to be as fast. Interface. Everything is in the same place. If you know how to use Windows, running apps, and changing settings in ReactOS is very, very similar. No matter how similar KDE may look to Windows, it doesn't work anything like it. Filesystems. Most systems may have FAT32 compatibility, but if you start using it for heavy tasks, the limitations and incompatibilities really come to the surface.
No doubt there's many more I can't think of at the moment.
I'm looking forward to ReactOS, if only because it will provide something Windows-compatible that isn't going to perform like a dog, and support isn't at the whim of Microsoft... I'd still be using NT4.0 if updates (of every kind) were still forthcoming. Instead, I'm sticking with 2000, jealously hoarding all available updates before Microsoft starts hiding them from the public, and hoping Microsoft won't be able to come up with anything in the future that will make it difficult to keep using old versions.
Slashdot Mirror
Extra cost for the chips, connectors, etc. Likely higher power requirements. The need to change your production line for the new interface. etc. etc.
You can do exactly the same with PATA, just about as easily. I've done so many, many times.
Unless you're doing this several times every day, the difference in connectors makes a trivially small difference.
Whoops:
"pushing the accelerator just slightly more"
You might not notice it, but it does.
So? Just because you don't pay that close attention to your gas mileage, doesn't mean it won't have an effect.
I bet an extra hour of lighting your house is such a small drain on power that you won't notice it on your electric bill. But that small percentage is exactly what DST is all about, and in aggregate it makes a huge difference.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you're once again trying to say that turning your alternator is free, you're simply, totally, wrong. You can't get something for nothing, no matter how small a power drain it is. You might not notice it, but you're pushing the alternator just slightly more to compensate for the resistance to the alternator, and so using up that much more gasoline.
Rechargeable batteries are many times more efficient than getting electricity from an ICE, add to that the limited supply of oil, and it's overwhelmingly clear that grid load is much better than car engine load.
Emergency services don't need several hundred MHz of bandwidth, and couldn't use all of it if they tried.
They'll be given a small chunk of it, but the vast majority of the lower TV frequencies will still be empty.
No, actually what I know is that you're absolutely wrong.
Intel's 65nm Core CPUs were released January 2006, while Xilinx was turning out press releases at the end of May 2006, claiming to have produced the first 65nm FPGAs.
What appears to be "obvious" to you, is utterly and completely wrong to the rest of the world...
I do believe you pretty well contradict yourself in those two opening sentences.
Yes, but 1) is heavily affected by the 1) of everyone else in the area. What better way is there to switch everyone in a large area to a different schedule, all at once?
It only works in the summer, because the period of daylight is actually longer.
If you keep it through the winter, suddenly many businesses are trying to work in the dark for the first hour, and they'll quickly decide to move the start of the work day back 1 hour, and most others will follow suit, thereby eliminating any benefit of DST.
You're definitely not going to be hot-plugging your notebook hard drive.
Except in rare cases, you're not likely to replace the drive more than once or twice in the lifetime of the notebook, so the "nicer connectors" mean very, very little.
You just answered your own question.
The switch to SATA has only a small bit to do with sustained throughput. Other issues are paramount.
Burst transfer, for instance, can be as fast as whatever bus you're using, and with notebooks typically having a larger HDD cache, that could be significant.
More than that, SATA features, like NCQ, which have long speed-up the performance of SCSI drives before they even reached 5400RPMs, will likely have just as much of a performance improvement on slow notebook drives, as they do on 2X faster desktop/enterprise units.
But just for the record, I don't think the performance improvements of SATA are worth the costs, right now, for home users.
No, they aren't. Most people watch TV just because they have nothing else to do. Their TV shows aren't at the very top of their list of things to do every day. If they can go somewhere, or do something, they aren't at all concerned about missing a TV show.
The ratings bear this out, with lower viewership in the summer months, which is why that is the off-season for most series.
Except of course for the fact that you're completely wrong.
You're turning the alternator, but when there's no electric load, it's providing very little resistance. When you start drawing watts, the resistance to your engine's momentum increases.
I, admitedly, have a small car (only 100HP). However, when I turn on the headlights in my idling car, I can easily feel the engine suddenly jerk, and watch the RPMs fall.
Just because you might not notice an extra 5% load on your engine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't have a 5% impact on your fuel economy (number made-up on the spot, of course it will vary with the vehicle).
Powering headlights off the grid is BETTER, not WORSE.
Your ICE is already only 25% efficient or so. Then the mechanical to electrical conversion adds more inefficiency. Then various other issues with the way car electrical systems work cause even more inefficiency, etc.
That's complete and total bullshit. Conservation of energy applies. You can't get something for nothing. Every watt of electricity you use was generated by burning at least 4 joules worth of gasoline, and likely more.
The only place that might not be true is if your car is incredibly inefficient to begin with (eg. V-8 in a 1-ton car), then the difference might be small enough as to go unnoticed.
And as an added bonus, since most Laptops can only use the same password for the hard drive as they do for the Laptop lock, you can start up an extremely profitable business selling the hardware adapter to download the EPROM from popular Laptops, and the software which seeks to the proper address in the ROM dump, and prints out the password.
eg. http://www.ja.axxs.net/unlock/
Interesting you'd use this wholly self-contradictory excuse. If the US was continuing "Cold War politics" they wouldn't have shut down the strategic air defense system, which could have tracked and stopped those "couple of planes" to begin with.
Iran has exactly a 0% chance of ever reaching near-parity with the US, needed for MAD.
Also, MAD went out the window with ICBMs (first-strike).
First, that dismisses the current status of China... A huge economy, with very, very little freedom.
Second, it doesn't account for western Europe... They have plenty of freedom, and a very strong economy, but they are so loosely organized that they couldn't, and probably still can't, pose real opposition to a single large (totalitarian) state.
IMO, the US prevailed because of very good leadership over several decades. There are many, many individual policy decisions that, had they gone differently, could have significantly changed the balance of power.
I'm not sure if you're really that stupid, or if this is a troll.
Bullshit.
Citation: "1985 air-launch satellite intercept [project]"
But more than that, he wasn't ever claiming the US doesn't have them, just that claims are vastly exaggerated, and unsupported (in other words he's saying "no citation given").
Pure bullshit, and you know it.
The actual headline was: 2. The latest United States "space policy" declares that it will "deny access to space" to those players it deems hostile,
He makes no claims what the US does or doesn't want to do. He points out that the often-cited "space policy" document contains no such claims. If you can't find the "space policy" he cited, you're not even trying: http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20
Overwhelming bullshit.
He absolutely never said "No they aren't!". He said it's expensive, much, much slower (DAYS), and submarines can do the job far faster/better.
Bullshit. He was countering the claim that it: will give the US an unfairly asymmetric and destabilizing military advantage
Obviously, it's not asymmetrical if your only (remotely symmetrical) opponent already has exactly the same capabilities.
No, actually it was "let's explain why BMD is vastly different than ASAT, and one doesn't apply to the other".
Equating a boost-phase anti-missile weapon (based at sea, on an aircraft, or even in space) to an anti-satellite weapon overlooks a fundamental design difference
That's as clear (and un-confused) as it gets.
He pointed out other important issues in the same statement (that they stopped testing) were lies. What citations do you need?
Now lets get back to you:
No citation given...
No citation given...
No citation given...
Well then you must be absolutely HORRIBLE at shopping for components.
Your numbers don't even make sense, unless you have unbelievably high standards when shopping for components, and ridiculously low standards when buying a pre-built system.
Provide a link for a system, and I can easily link to cheaper (and probably bette) components.
CRT monitors are probably the only exception, as shipping is so high that buying an over-priced model in a retail store often still puts you ahead. Of course, even in those cases, a bit of online comparison and patience can yield extremely good deals.
Not really true. There are a few different big Caps manufacturers to choose between.
Definately not true for computer components. There's a reason the high-end brands like Asus and Gigabyte give you 3year warranties, and crap like PcChips, Ecs and others give you practically nothing. Even when they do offer warranties, they try to weasel out of it, making it as hard as possible to get service, with stupid requirements.
I've occasionally seen some stupid design decisions and corner cutting from the more expensive manufacturers, but I've never seen high-quality from the cheap-crap manufacturers. Longer warranties, if nothing else, significantly reduce the amount of profit to be made by cutting corners, as they'll have to pay for it later.
The major difference being, when you buy a system from Dell or HP, you'll probably find features missing from those cheap-ass components. For example, it's pretty common to find your low-end HP/Dell motherboards lacking an AGP slot.
It seemed pretty inevitable to me, that the Intel/IBM/AMDs of the world would branch out.
The generation-old fabs they abandon for CPU-making, are still a generation newer than what most anyone else has available. Repurposing those fabs to produce something like Flash chips, chipsets, etc. seems a pretty straight-forward and inexpensive way to keep making money on largely worthless facilities, even after the cost of retooling is taken into account.
Though they obviously haven't done it yet, companies like Intel have the manufacturing capabilities to leapfrog past all current Flash manufacturers, as far as density is concerned (though, personally, I'd say Flash density is fine, if the price can be driven down).
People say that a lot, but apparently nobody thinks it through.
For a PC to be cheaper with Windows, Dell has to be getting an AVERAGE of at least $60+ from the vendors of the crap they've installed, to even COVER the cost of Windows. And for it to justify the $40 more expensive FreeDOS PCs, they'd have to be making well over $100 on that crap.
Either Dell is install the most valuable spyware in history, or the numbers don't come remotely close to adding up.
They call up Dell and complain. Dell asks them to look for a "Linux Compatible" sticker on the box, and when they don't find one, advises them to return their printer to the store or otherwise dispose of it, and offers to sell them an out-of-the-box, 100% Linux compatible printer...
JUST LIKE THEY DO WHEN YOU BUY HARDWARE THAT ISN'T COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR VERSION OF WINDOWS.
The difference between Linux and Windows, IMHO, is the people using it. People complain how hard it was to get random piece of hardware to work with Linux, not realizing it would have been far harder, if not impossible to even use with Windows. Most people won't be skilled enough to go through the trouble, and as the easier options come along, they'll buy them.
I doubt that. First, people that wanted Windows without any extra crap installed were a close second to the Linux/NoOS option.
Second, a big part (but not the only part) of wanting Linux is wanting cheaper computers... and EVERYBODY wants that. Even those who use Windows, but have their own retail copy they've kept using across 5 different systems, will want the same thing. If Linux is as cheap as the No OS option, and is cheaper than systems sold with Windows, there will be plenty of overlapping customer interests, and therefore demand.
Maybe only a minority will keep the stock Dell Linux install, but no matter what your OS of choice, it will surely increase sales, and could slightly increase profits, if they don't screw it up.
No. The projects are working together, and code goes back and fourth... That's kinda the point of Open Source, isn't it? If somebody else does it better, you use what they've written, in your own project.
A few of the reasons to use ReactOS instead of WINE:
Drivers. How well does WINE load that WinXP dll/ocx driver for your WiFi card? Display driver? etc.
Performance. Compatibility layer on top of another OS is never going to be as fast.
Interface. Everything is in the same place. If you know how to use Windows, running apps, and changing settings in ReactOS is very, very similar. No matter how similar KDE may look to Windows, it doesn't work anything like it.
Filesystems. Most systems may have FAT32 compatibility, but if you start using it for heavy tasks, the limitations and incompatibilities really come to the surface.
No doubt there's many more I can't think of at the moment.
I'm looking forward to ReactOS, if only because it will provide something Windows-compatible that isn't going to perform like a dog, and support isn't at the whim of Microsoft... I'd still be using NT4.0 if updates (of every kind) were still forthcoming. Instead, I'm sticking with 2000, jealously hoarding all available updates before Microsoft starts hiding them from the public, and hoping Microsoft won't be able to come up with anything in the future that will make it difficult to keep using old versions.